f13.net

f13.net General Forums => MMOG Discussion => Topic started by: Lucas on September 15, 2008, 10:05:31 AM



Title: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on September 15, 2008, 10:05:31 AM
Ye olde corporate Homepage:
http://www.zenimaxonline.com/index.html (http://www.zenimaxonline.com/index.html)

...And they got a recruiting booth at the AGDC:
http://www.zenimaxonline.com/news_austin_gdc_recruiting.html (http://www.zenimaxonline.com/news_austin_gdc_recruiting.html)

President is Matt Firor, one of the founders of Mythic Entertainment and original Producer of Dark Age of Camelot.

Hmm... :drillf:  :awesome_for_real:

Cliff Racer killed : 0/235354956968


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: NiX on September 15, 2008, 10:41:59 AM
I'm tired of hearing companies say they're working on a "AAA" title. At best they'll release a "B" quality game.


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Murgos on September 15, 2008, 05:26:50 PM
Or, possibly, Fallout Online...


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Lucas on September 15, 2008, 07:51:49 PM
Or, possibly, Fallout Online...

AFAIK, Interplay still has the rights for that, not Bethesda   :ye_gods:


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: UnSub on September 15, 2008, 11:40:02 PM
Or, possibly, Fallout Online...

AFAIK, Interplay still has the rights for that, not Bethesda   :ye_gods:

... and they only need $75 million dollars before they'll get to work on it.


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: schild on September 16, 2008, 02:06:26 AM
Wait, this is new to the public?


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Wasted on September 16, 2008, 07:14:38 AM
Its not even new here, though that particular news is further confirmation I guess?

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=12091.0 (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=12091.0)

http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=11217.0 (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=11217.0)

Poor schild, so weighted with his arcane secrets and lore he can no longer ever be one of us again  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Renegade on September 20, 2008, 06:15:33 PM
Urgh....Imagine a world populated by those horrible Oblivion characters being controlled by other people. How are Bethesda going to manage MMO balance when they can't get a simple RPG progression system correct in a single player game?


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: HaemishM on September 22, 2008, 11:58:02 AM
How are Bethesda going to manage MMO balance when they can't get a simple RPG progression system correct in a single player game?

As badly as every other MMOG dev out there?


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Lucas on May 03, 2012, 11:55:42 AM
Aaaand:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/03/june-cover-revealed-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

Quote
An in-depth look at everything from solo questing to public dungeons awaits in our enormous June cover story – as well as a peek at the player-driven PvP conflict that pits the three player factions against each other in open-world warfare over the province of Cyrodiil and the Emperor's throne itself.

Come back tomorrow morning for a brief teaser trailer from Zenimax Online and Bethesda Softworks, and later on in the afternoon for the first screenshot of the game. Over the course of the month, be sure to visit our Elder Scrolls Online hub, which will feature new exclusive content multiple times each week. You'll meet the three player factions, see video interviews with the creative leads, and much more.


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: koro on May 03, 2012, 11:56:20 AM
I love TES and I love MMOs, but I can't really get myself excited for the prospect of a TES MMO.


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Threash on May 03, 2012, 11:57:27 AM
I'm excited at the prospect of three fucking factions in pvp.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: IainC on May 03, 2012, 12:15:56 PM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 03, 2012, 12:27:42 PM
Also I'm hearing that this is using the Hero Engine? If that's true, then I can't imagine TESO bringing in the level of detail that people would have come to expect in a TES game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: luckton on May 03, 2012, 12:38:08 PM
Also I'm hearing that this is using the Hero Engine? If that's true, then I can't imagine TESO bringing in the level of detail that people would have come to expect in a TES game.

I dunno...the way some people around talk about Hero Engine, it sounds like the folks at Bioware are justa bunch of punk slackers who don't know their shit.  On the other hand, if a totally separate company still manages to make a crap game and it gets blamed on the engine, does that discredit everyone that said Hero Engine was the stuff of gods?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: raydeen on May 03, 2012, 12:48:23 PM
Guess I'll start saving my pennies for a new system. I'm not ashamed to admit I've been waiting for this for years. It probably won't turn out anything like what I want or imagine but it's the only future MMO I'm looking forward to, or at least looking forward to how it turns out.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 03, 2012, 12:48:58 PM
Do not confuse Engine layer with Game layer. The two rarely meet on any given design.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on May 03, 2012, 01:25:23 PM
Meh.  Elder Scrolls is all about open world, doing what you want, etc.  I don't see that translating into a popular MMO these days.  Which means, Elder Scrolls DIKU incoming, (maybe they will try something TOR-like which is equally uninteresting to me). :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 03, 2012, 01:43:54 PM
who knows, maybe we'll get a "sandpark" like XL Games is trying to do with Archage  :awesome_for_real:

(Temporary) Official forums:

http://forums.bethsoft.com/forum/190-elder-scrolls-online-general-discussion/

Special website on GameInformer (that will fill up starting tomorrow):

http://www.gameinformer.com/p/elderscrollsonline.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on May 03, 2012, 01:51:55 PM
yay?

let's hope for the best


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 02:45:43 PM
If they make combat about button mashing abilities, this game will be DOA. I'm hoping, hoping, HOPING, they don't try to make a loot centered raiding don't stand in the fire clone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 03, 2012, 02:49:38 PM
Combat has to be at least like Oblivion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 03, 2012, 02:58:28 PM
I don't have a beef with DIKU like a lot of people here and even I cringe at the idea of raiding to kill some daedric lord and arguing over who gets his pants.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on May 03, 2012, 03:32:41 PM
This is a terrible idea and can only be happening because the work is already underway and has been for some time. Otherwise just looking at SWTOR would be enough to convince anyone that it shouldn't be done.

Oh and I await the interface from HELL.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 03:33:11 PM
Oh and they will release it for consoles.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 03, 2012, 03:42:55 PM
2013?!?

Wonder if they'll be showing at E3.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 03, 2012, 03:50:08 PM
I suspect this will have more in common with Minecraft than WoW.

Edit: Diablo 2 is a better example. Emphasis on loot & exploring procedurally-generated areas with defined hubs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: NiX on May 03, 2012, 03:53:04 PM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Don't you dare tease me like this!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 03, 2012, 05:53:43 PM
Sandbox. Please. PLEASE.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on May 03, 2012, 06:59:02 PM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Don't you dare tease me like this!

Didnt people say the same thing about War?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 03, 2012, 06:59:33 PM
I've been reading the leaked Game Informer digital issue (which seems legit) through another website and.... :heartbreak:  :sad_panda:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 07:00:10 PM
There are some leaks of the Game Informer article around the internet now.  Let's just say, from what I read, I have cancelled my pre order of TSW, and thoughts of GW2 and TERA have fled my mind.  I'm going to play my old standbys til this game comes out.  I have pretty huge confidence that Firor and team are going to deliver.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 07:00:51 PM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Don't you dare tease me like this!

Didnt people say the same thing about War?


Matt Firor and his team were LONG gone from Mythic before WAR.  Marc Jacobs and his new hires ruined that game all by themselves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 07:01:29 PM
I've been reading the leaked Game Informer digital issue (which seems legit) through another website and.... :heartbreak:  :sad_panda:

Haha, we must have very different taste :)


Title: Re: ZeniMax Online Studios (Elder Scrolls Online?)
Post by: Scold on May 03, 2012, 07:02:03 PM
My (likely unpopular) take: DAoC was a shit MMO in both PvP and PvE, Oblivion was a mediocre at best RPG that lacked heart and engaging content... match made in heaven, I guess?

Sandbox. Please. PLEASE.

That's a good one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 03, 2012, 07:41:00 PM
I guess a player can become emperor? Is that true?

ALL HAIL THE NEW EMPEROR: xXx_WeeDGokU_xXx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 03, 2012, 08:06:53 PM

Fairly inevitable, but the company is so poor at coming up with game mechanics and balance it should be fairly hilarious. And this time you won't be able to download mods to correct their flaws.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 08:15:28 PM

Fairly inevitable, but the company is so poor at coming up with game mechanics and balance it should be fairly hilarious. And this time you won't be able to download mods to correct their flaws.


Bethesda isn't making this.  If they were, I wouldn't really be very optimistic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nonentity on May 03, 2012, 08:17:13 PM
Long info dump after the break, taken from GAF:


Hotbar combat (limited skill selection, can swap out of combat, ala D3/GW2), third person, no player housing, 'classes and experience and aother traditional MMORPG progression mechanics'


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Redgiant on May 03, 2012, 08:21:10 PM
Oh and I await the interface from HELL.

Oh God, this.

I buy every TES game, and I promptly give up after the first week with the awful (nay criminal) UI for a modern PC game.

The only interest for me is seeing Matt Firor and others fro DAoC/Mythic on it. Maybe they'll use it as a springboard excuse to do a true DAoC successor.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tearofsoul on May 03, 2012, 08:32:47 PM
3 factions bitches!  :pedobear:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 03, 2012, 08:38:26 PM
The idea that the "Lore" of the elder scrolls world has any value, as championed in that article, is hilarious. It was just an expanse to walk through looking for points of interest and things to kill. The PvP section could have been written as "Like GW2 is doing without the server vs server aspect to keep it fresh".

Oh well, it's only a fluff article. I look forward to learning more when the NDA drops.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 09:27:17 PM
Quote
-Third person perspective
-The game uses a hotbar to activate skills like other traditional MMOs
-Visually it looks like other Hero Engine MMOs like SWTOR
-The general art style is kind of like RIFT or Everquest 2
-There will be no player housing
-There will be no NPC romances or marriage

-"It needs to be comfortable for people who are coming in from a typical massively multiplayer game that has the same control mechanisms, but it also has to appeal to Skyrim players."

-"Recreateing the freedom Elder Scrolls players expect within the World of Warcraft-style mechanics Zenimax Online is using for this MMO would be impossible without changing the way that players interact with the world."

-The game uses MMORPG genre standards such as classes, experience points, and other traditional MMORPG progression mechanics, but they try to present it "around the core fantasy presented by traditiona Elder Scrolls games" such as traveling around and righting wrongs or seeking riches

Sometimes I think WoW wasn't a game Blizzard designed to make money, it was a game they designed to destroy rival game studios one by one for the sheer villainy of it.

This sounds like what everyone thought it was going to be. WoW with a TES paintjob, on the Hero engine no less. Good fucking game MMO industry, you guys are the stupidest motherfuckers on the planet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 09:30:40 PM
If they make combat about button mashing abilities, this game will be DOA. I'm hoping, hoping, HOPING, they don't try to make a loot centered raiding don't stand in the fire clone.

Nevermind. Fuck this game and let it die in the writhing pit with the rest of the clones.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 09:35:27 PM
Is it a reading comprehension thing?  Where in the article does it say the game is just like WOW?

-No quest hubs.  This is one huge difference, which leads to:
-Massive open world you can explore and get rewarded for doing quest like things organically - no quest giver - i.e. you find a barrow of undead, you clear them, and the shade you put to rest gives you a reward
-Endurance management that allows you to: block, sprint, break CC, fire off big attacks (all classes need to manage this)
-Skill combos that you can chain off your own abilities or your allies'
-Perpetual PVP zone in the center of the world map where you fight over cities, farms, keeps, towers, mines
-Open, non-instanced dungeons
-Three factions
-Graphics that are really nothing like WOW - more like non plastic looking EQ2

I could go on and on, but really, try to read the leaks a little more carefully.  It doesn't sound like WOW 2.0 to me, it sounds like DAOC 2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 09:40:21 PM
There's nothing about it at all that sounds like Elder Scrolls. Also 3 factions and a pvp zone does not DAOC make, any more than RvR lakes and city sieges did it for WAR. 3 factions is not a magic bullet by itself.

They themselves say class structure, XP, and other mechanics are "traditional MMORPG". Gee, I wonder what they mean by that, couldn't be bog standard DIKU (Warcraft edition), no sir.
Quote
An example quest is the story of Camlorn, where you have to stop evil werewolves who have their eyes set on conquest. First, you have to do a "standard MMO kill and collection quest" to sto ghosts from attacking some mages and soldiers. The ghosts are reliving a battle that the werewolf leader was in. You summon a ghost to find out what's going on, and the ghost tells you to wear her dead husband's armor to re-experience the battle he died in. You then get transported hundreds of years into the past to fight this battle. During this battle, you can choose to save the dead man's wife or to pursue the Werewolf leader. ZeniMax chooses to save the man's wife, who then tells you that the Werewolf leader is weak to fire. This information is helpful when you fight him, but you don't actually need to do this quest before fighting the werewolf leader if you don't want to. Basically, you can skip parts of quest chains if you want, but you get some benefit for playing the whole thing. Also, whenever you go back to the town you just saved, everything there hails you as a hero.
Yeah, this is revolutionary and new.  :uhrr: Sounds like WoW with extra phasing. Real DAOC vibes here amirite?

Quote
-Open, non-instanced dungeons
Quote
-The game will have raids and heroic modes for its dungeons as end game content in addition to faction PvP
-There is also balanced PvP for people who prefer eSports

-The game will also have high end public dungeons


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 09:46:38 PM
There's nothing about it at all that sounds like Elder Scrolls. Also 3 factions and a pvp zone does not DAOC make, any more than RvR lakes and city sieges did it for WAR. 3 factions is not a magic bullet by itself.

They themselves say combat, class structure, XP, and other mechanics are "traditional MMORPG". Gee, I wonder what they mean by that, couldn't be bog standard DIKU (Warcraft edition), no sir.
Quote
An example quest is the story of Camlorn, where you have to stop evil werewolves who have their eyes set on conquest. First, you have to do a "standard MMO kill and collection quest" to sto ghosts from attacking some mages and soldiers. The ghosts are reliving a battle that the werewolf leader was in. You summon a ghost to find out what's going on, and the ghost tells you to wear her dead husband's armor to re-experience the battle he died in. You then get transported hundreds of years into the past to fight this battle. During this battle, you can choose to save the dead man's wife or to pursue the Werewolf leader. ZeniMax chooses to save the man's wife, who then tells you that the Werewolf leader is weak to fire. This information is helpful when you fight him, but you don't actually need to do this quest before fighting the werewolf leader if you don't want to. Basically, you can skip parts of quest chains if you want, but you get some benefit for playing the whole thing. Also, whenever you go back to the town you just saved, everything there hails you as a hero.
Yeah, this is revolutionary and new.  :uhrr: Sounds like WoW with extra phasing. Real DAOC vibes here amirite?

Fiery, you and I are interpretting this same article very differently.  We can keep going at it all day long - you are being pessimistic, and I'm being optimistic.  I could talk to you about how Matt Firor had nothing to do with WAR, and everything to do with the original design of RVR, but who cares?  We'll have to wait and see what comes out of actual interviews and in-game footage.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on May 03, 2012, 09:47:05 PM
Long info dump after the break, taken from GAF:

Quote
-Public dungeons are essentially instances that aren't actually instanced, so anyone can be in them, so imagine a World of Warcraft dungeon that featured everyone on the server in the area instead of just your party
Wow; old is new again. Athough it's mildly depressing they even have to explain the concept.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 09:48:45 PM
There's nothing about it at all that sounds like Elder Scrolls. Also 3 factions and a pvp zone does not DAOC make, any more than RvR lakes and city sieges did it for WAR. 3 factions is not a magic bullet by itself.

They themselves say combat, class structure, XP, and other mechanics are "traditional MMORPG". Gee, I wonder what they mean by that, couldn't be bog standard DIKU (Warcraft edition), no sir.
Quote
An example quest is the story of Camlorn, where you have to stop evil werewolves who have their eyes set on conquest. First, you have to do a "standard MMO kill and collection quest" to sto ghosts from attacking some mages and soldiers. The ghosts are reliving a battle that the werewolf leader was in. You summon a ghost to find out what's going on, and the ghost tells you to wear her dead husband's armor to re-experience the battle he died in. You then get transported hundreds of years into the past to fight this battle. During this battle, you can choose to save the dead man's wife or to pursue the Werewolf leader. ZeniMax chooses to save the man's wife, who then tells you that the Werewolf leader is weak to fire. This information is helpful when you fight him, but you don't actually need to do this quest before fighting the werewolf leader if you don't want to. Basically, you can skip parts of quest chains if you want, but you get some benefit for playing the whole thing. Also, whenever you go back to the town you just saved, everything there hails you as a hero.
Yeah, this is revolutionary and new.  :uhrr: Sounds like WoW with extra phasing. Real DAOC vibes here amirite?

Fiery, you and I are interpretting this same article very differently.  We can keep going at it all day long - you are being pessimistic, and I'm being optimistic.  I could talk to you about how Matt Firor had nothing to do with WAR, and everything to do with the original design of RVR, but who cares?  We'll have to wait and see what comes out of actual interviews and in-game footage.
How can you read this:
Quote
-There is also balanced PvP for people who prefer eSports
And think they give a fuck about DAOC?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 09:54:04 PM
How can you read this:
Quote
-There is also balanced PvP for people who prefer eSports
And think they give a fuck about DAOC?

You don't remember the BG's in DAOC?  I'm hoping the'll do something similar - so it makes sense in the lore.  Camelot Herald had leader boards before it was cool, btw.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 10:00:49 PM
How can you read this:
Quote
-There is also balanced PvP for people who prefer eSports
And think they give a fuck about DAOC?

You don't remember the BG's in DAOC?  I'm hoping the'll do something similar - so it makes sense in the lore.  Camelot Herald had leader boards before it was cool, btw.
That wasn't eSports. No one says that about their epic RvR game unless "epic RvR game" are just words on a page to them that coexist with "balanced PvP for eSports" which are also just words on a page.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 10:03:22 PM
The main point is that the combat is based on the same stupid button-mashing-mmo-bar shit. Where was the action bar in TES stuff? I must have missed that one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 10:10:45 PM

You don't remember the BG's in DAOC?  I'm hoping the'll do something similar - so it makes sense in the lore.  Camelot Herald had leader boards before it was cool, btw.
That wasn't eSports. No one says that about their epic RvR game unless "epic RvR game" are just words on a page to them that coexist with "balanced PvP for eSports" which are also just words on a page.



Those are Game Informer's words - the esports thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: MisterNoisy on May 03, 2012, 10:13:38 PM
A team of 250 people are about to drop the world's largest steamer after six years of hard work.  At least the magnitude of this game's failure will give Bioware Austin someone to piss on from above.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 10:14:23 PM
The main point is that the combat is based on the same stupid button-mashing-mmo-bar shit. Where was the action bar in TES stuff? I must have missed that one.

Yeah, if you really liked the TES (Skyrim) combat, I don't think I can say anything to sway you.  I thought it was clunky and lame compared to 2001 era DAOC with positional styles and follow up chains and reactionary styles.  Based on the article, TESO is going to have a similar system but much more advanced.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 03, 2012, 10:36:23 PM
A team of 250 people are about to drop the world's largest steamer after six years of hard work.  At least the magnitude of this game's failure will give Bioware Austin someone to piss on from above.

This... There is no chance of this being a good game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 03, 2012, 10:36:52 PM
Legitimately surprised they're going with action-bar combat. So their selling point is going to be...what, the wonderful story/setting of The Elder Scrolls? A PVP focus? Good luck with that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 03, 2012, 10:47:22 PM
Bioware Austin someone to piss on from above.

It would have to be an incredible stinker to give Bioware Austin any cred. It probably hasn't cost as much or had such a global IP to leech off. I mean Jedi knights versus.... hell, I don't even know what is iconic about elder scrolls... Redguard spell-swords?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 03, 2012, 10:54:33 PM
The only iconic thing about TES is the Daedric Lords, imo.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 10:56:25 PM
Also, this better be the last time in the history of the world that someone pulls out the DAOC card and says "yeah man, we have {X number of people from DAOC here where X >=1} therefore, we totally GET PvP and our MMO will totally blow you the fuck away, HYPE BABY."

Yeah, it's not like we heard that twice already, once with the actual Mythic team itself. And the second time around with the hollowed out shell of the Mythic team. This is like that one with where the boy cries wolf, and the second time, the people still believe him because ???, and then the third time they still believe him because ???. That was a good fable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 03, 2012, 11:11:00 PM
Also, this better be the last time in the history of the world that someone pulls out the DAOC card and says "yeah man, we have {X number of people from DAOC here where X >=1} therefore, we totally GET PvP and our MMO will totally blow you the fuck away, HYPE BABY."

Yeah, it's not like we heard that twice already, once with the actual Mythic team itself. And the second time around with the hollowed out shell of the Mythic team. This is like that one with where the boy cries wolf, and the second time, the people still believe him because ???, and then the third time they still believe him because ???. That was a good fable.

I can't agree with you more, Fiery.  I'm willing to listen to it 1 more time cause Matt Firor had nothing to do with those other games, and he's basically the last guy from the original team to not be involved with a piece of shit. (yet)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 03, 2012, 11:28:31 PM
WAR is what made me the MMO cynic I am now. I haven't seen any reason to change so far. Guild Wars 2 better give me a blowjob when it launches and I might turn around.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 04, 2012, 12:05:21 AM
Apparently there is "no aggro mechanics", which I guess means that mobs just attack whoever the fuck they want, which sounds pretty good to me. Personally I'm really tired of the artificiality and predictable of "big dude taunts enemies who refuse to attack anyone else ever." But the rest of it sounds bog standard and almost nothing like Elder Scrolls. Sounds very much like a "standard" MMO first and an Elder Scrolls game second.

And given that the "lore" of Elder Scrolls is basically worthless without the mechanics taking the lore while leaving the mechanics sounds like a bad idea.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 04, 2012, 12:06:01 AM
I know none of you really know me all that well, but I am generally a very optimistic person. I was pumped for stuff like Champions, WAR, Age of Conan, Star Trek Online and even FFXIV before I played the beta and went "oh fuck no" alongside everybody else. I'm generally pretty good at latching onto glimmers of hope and thinking "well, this could still work if they..." when my fourteen years of MMOing should have sent me packing and long after every other skeptic had long since written the games in question off. That's not to say I'll just buy any old thing, though. I know a stinker when I see one, even if it's after everyone else and a week before launch.

I love Elder Scrolls and have been an avid (and sometimes rabid) fan since Daggerfall; I even sunk over 200 hours into Oblivion despite liking next to none of it, solely because it still had that Civilization-like hook to it that just gets me. I love MMOs, diku and non-diku alike. I loved DAoC; it's probably my third favorite MMO of the couple dozen I've played. I even still enjoy PvP, though less than I used to.

Yet there is nothing - nothing whatsoever - about anything I've seen or read or heard about this game that even begins to interest me. I am about as perfect of an example of their target audience as it gets yet it misses the mark on what I would enjoy seeing out of a multiplayer Elder Scrolls by such a wide margin that they may as well have been aiming for Andromeda.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 04, 2012, 01:54:11 AM
Quote
-There will be no player housing
What the....? So where am I supposed to store all my god damn cheeses?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 04, 2012, 02:30:11 AM
Apparently there is "no aggro mechanics", which I guess means that mobs just attack whoever the fuck they want, which sounds pretty good to me. Personally I'm really tired of the artificiality and predictable of "big dude taunts enemies who refuse to attack anyone else ever."

If there is combat in the game there will be an aggro mechanic. If it is pick target randomly then there is no possibility of tactics and role specialisation which is viable but a step towards the zerg.

Though given an Elder Scrolls character is generally a heavily armored, high hit point wizard / warrior / priest / archer / rogue maybe it does make sense to just ignore any sort of party mechanic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 04, 2012, 02:37:24 AM
If there is combat in the game there will be an aggro mechanic. If it is pick target randomly then there is no possibility of tactics and role specialisation which is viable but a step towards the zerg.

Real life combat features plenty of tactics and role specialization despite the fact that tanks don't have special taunt abilities that enrage other tanks and blind them to other targets.

Here's a tactic: if an enemy is running over to kill you wizard trip him.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 04, 2012, 02:45:56 AM
So constantly be immobilizing and stunning them when they go for a soft target since you can't actually change their focus? That sounds much more fun and would certainly segue naturally into PvP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 04, 2012, 03:06:13 AM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Is that a recommendation or a warning?  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 04, 2012, 05:47:49 AM
I know none of you really know me all that well, but I am generally a very optimistic person. I was pumped for stuff like Champions, WAR, Age of Conan, Star Trek Online and even FFXIV before I played the beta and went "oh fuck no" alongside everybody else. I'm generally pretty good at latching onto glimmers of hope and thinking "well, this could still work if they..." when my fourteen years of MMOing should have sent me packing and long after every other skeptic had long since written the games in question off. That's not to say I'll just buy any old thing, though. I know a stinker when I see one, even if it's after everyone else and a week before launch.

I love Elder Scrolls and have been an avid (and sometimes rabid) fan since Daggerfall; I even sunk over 200 hours into Oblivion despite liking next to none of it, solely because it still had that Civilization-like hook to it that just gets me. I love MMOs, diku and non-diku alike. I loved DAoC; it's probably my third favorite MMO of the couple dozen I've played. I even still enjoy PvP, though less than I used to.

Yet there is nothing - nothing whatsoever - about anything I've seen or read or heard about this game that even begins to interest me. I am about as perfect of an example of their target audience as it gets yet it misses the mark on what I would enjoy seeing out of a multiplayer Elder Scrolls by such a wide margin that they may as well have been aiming for Andromeda.
To be fair, while I don't play them most of my friends/colleagues who play MMOs thought Age of Conan and Star Trek were pretty good games that could stand on their own after they got some judicious patching. It's too bad that first impressions are everything with MMOs and only WoW has really gotten it right for some reason.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 04, 2012, 05:50:17 AM
Fiery, you and I are interpretting this same article very differently.  We can keep going at it all day long - you are being pessimistic, and I'm being optimistic.
I've found that when it comes to MMORPGs these days, being pessimistic yields a much higher success rate than being optimistic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 06:53:39 AM
Maybe I felt too let down earlier when I first read the leaks; now I'll just wait to have a more organic picture of the whole thing (along with a gameplay video during the expo summer season, hopefully). It's just that, at first sight, it looks like a messy mixture of stuff put in a cauldron; some elements sound too generic: in my opinion, TOR represented the last "pure" diku model (with some fresh elements here and there, yes), and I hope software houses will start exploring new ground from now on.

And, for my tastes (so it's more of a personal wish), "old is new", like someone mentioned earlier (lol at "public dungeons"), so I hope to see more and more mmos switching toward sandbox skill based titles :P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 08:53:31 AM
Don't be fooled. Your first impressions when you heard about the changes to combat will never be wrong.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Surlyboi on May 04, 2012, 09:07:49 AM
Fus-Ro-Dumb.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 09:09:45 AM
Fiery, you and I are interpretting this same article very differently.  We can keep going at it all day long - you are being pessimistic, and I'm being optimistic.
I've found that when it comes to MMORPGs these days, being pessimistic yields a much higher success rate than being optimistic.

Perhaps, and I have been very pessimistic since the whole Vanguard debacle, but honestly, since I heard rumors of the MMO Matt Firor was working on in 2007, I've been waiting for this, and if you look at that article with non-jaded eyes, and give a little faith to Firor and his team, it's easy to still be excited.  Especially if you loved DAOC.  I'm at the very least going to be patient and wait for some game play vids and interviews and maybe even a beta before I start to turn pessimistic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 09:11:59 AM
Official website now online:

http://elderscrollsonline.com


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2012, 09:35:16 AM
WAR is what made me the MMO cynic I am now. I haven't seen any reason to change so far. Guild Wars 2 better give me a blowjob when it launches and I might turn around.
I'm thinking of ways to have the babies of all ArenaNet staff.  ALL OF THEM.  And I'm still cynical about any MMO release.

Stop fucking trying to impersonate WoW "because it's what MMO players know".  Make a good game.  Make your own game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 04, 2012, 10:00:57 AM
Quote
-The game uses a hotbar to activate skills like other traditional MMOs

Meh..


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 10:03:04 AM
Wow, I was checking the general reaction (most of it coming from those who read the leaked GI preview) on some of the most known websites dedicated to MMOs and PC gaming, and...well, I'm not really sure it's what Zenimax Online was expecting. Don't know, maybe the same ones voicing a negative opinion will turn into drooling fans after a couple of "reassuring words" by the lead developers. Even the official boards are pretty negative (but what do you expect from the single-player games fans, used to a sandbox style? I'm not really surprised).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on May 04, 2012, 10:08:28 AM
Darkfall doesnt have agro mechanics in PvE and it works. The Mobs have decent battle AI, but their agro and patterns are pretty random. The only real "agro" function is that since back attacks do double damage, they tend to turn onpeople whacking them repeatedly there, as a self preservation mechanism.

The randomness of the Mobs actually makes it a bit more interesting in some ways, it really forces you to keep on your toes because the mob can turn on anyone in an instant. The PvE is also more engaging because the game is manual aim, so you actually have to aim your attacks, and friendly fire is on too, so aim carefully...You can even miss heals and heal the mob.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 04, 2012, 10:16:31 AM
Teaser (http://kotaku.com/5907648/the-elder-scrolls-online-now-has-a-trailer).

If they're smart, they'll now shut up until a well polished playable demo hits some convention. There is no possible way to please the WoW+Skyrim player. They've set an impossible goal just in this statement alone (or whoever wrote this):

Quote
"It needs to be comfortable for people who are comign in from a typical massively multiplayer game [wish they'd just say WoW] that has the same control mechanisms, but it also has to appeal to Skyrim players."
That person exists, but those two games are almost as far apart on everything as freaking Skyrim and Battlefield. I'm with Lantyssa: make your own game. Considering their source has been a long series of their own game, it's a shame they think the market is a bunch of has-been saved-by-f2p titles and WoW.

Feels like they're pulling a "eh, instead of sequels we'll do ES 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 all together and charge a recurring fee for it!/moneyhats." Maybe they can course correct some of it given the sunk resources vs actual returns on TOR.

Most of that GAF list was stock-MMO. Maybe it'll be good on that merit alone. But I'll manage my skepticism until I get hands at keyboard time with it :)

Four things stuck out at me though from that GAF list:

-The general art style is kind of like RIFT or Everquest 2: Ugh, really? not exactly inspiring here
-There will be no player housing: Hopefully that's an implied "not yet", since, ya know, RPG source had houses and shops and whatnot
-There will be no NPC romances or marriage: bland
-the game is set 1000 years in the past: wtf is it with pre-quelitis. Why are so many afraid to move things forward

The whole section about PvP: don't care, except insofar as my already-gutted RPG will get resources sucked away into PvP. As much love as DAoC BGs get, really small audience there. They'd probably rip off WoW's more simply because a lot more people played them. So, I'm leaning on the eSports side here too.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 04, 2012, 10:20:23 AM
My obligatory train wreck prediction loses it's magic when everyone else knows the game will be a steaming pile of shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 10:26:05 AM
I still can't even get over how dumb this is. They aren't even making a TES game! It's nothing like anything we've ever played except for the name. HOW IS ANYBODY STILL THIS STUPID IN THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT???


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 04, 2012, 10:35:58 AM
I have said, and maintain, that you have to be insane to dump lots of money into an MMO now. Have to. I said it after the AoC and WAR debacles. It's only been confirmed to me since then that people have no idea what they're doing. GW2 is probably the last gasp for MMOs for me, at least as a regular player. You have no idea how badly I want TESO to be good but it just won't be.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2012, 11:32:02 AM
-the game is set 1000 years in the past: wtf is it with pre-quelitis. Why are so many afraid to move things forward
While I do agree, I don't have a problem with a far-flung prequel.  If it is given its own lore.  TOR upsets me because instead of expanding on the Old Republic games, it feels like the Clone Wars is a few years off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Maledict on May 04, 2012, 11:40:45 AM
They are using the HeroEngine.

Seriously - WHY are developers doing this? It's terrible! Bioware sunk how many millions into it and it still runs like shit, looks bland and has unresponsive combat?

Completely don't understand this decision. The guys who make HeroEngine must have the worlds best salespeople behind them.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 04, 2012, 12:16:36 PM
From the HeroEngine page: "FOCUS ON BUILDING YOUR GAME NOT THE TECH"

No! NO! Bad! Bad! Tech good! Tech very good! Just as important as the game!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 04, 2012, 12:46:18 PM
They are using the HeroEngine.

Seriously - WHY are developers doing this? It's terrible! Bioware sunk how many millions into it and it still runs like shit, looks bland and has unresponsive combat?

Completely don't understand this decision. The guys who make HeroEngine must have the worlds best salespeople behind them.

I suspect that it's no coincidence that both Zenimax and Bioware started using the Hero Engine for their MMOs in the same year - 2007. Simutronics must've had a hell of a sales pitch, and by the time the MMO market showed that you can't out-WoW WoW, it was too late to really do an engine switch.

Also, I don't know how kosher it is here, but here (http://imgur.com/a/fO9Ty#5) is the actual Game Informer article the GAF thread's bullet points are taken from.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 12:58:49 PM
I think we are pretty against violating NDAs, but I don't think scooping gamer magazines bothers anybody, considering what they are.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2012, 01:15:19 PM
Quote
The reality of network latency and massively multiplayer games prevents The Elder Scrolls Online from following the real-time combat model that has driven the series since its inception

 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: raydeen on May 04, 2012, 01:16:30 PM
The public dungeons fill me with a certain dread. I can just see griefers training the entire dungeon to the zone line or figuring out some other new way to dick with the n00bs. I really loved EQ when they came out with LDoN. "A personal dungeon just for me and my party that no one else can fuck with? A capital idea my good man!" Now I will say that it could be interesting if there's a group/raid pvp element to it. But then it would sound something like what Aion did and while I never played it, I read all the horror stories about it.

Why is it so hard for a company to copy one of the few good things that EQ did? Make pvp level ranged or do what CoH and WAR did (although WAR's implementation was a bug), have level scaling. I was a level 2 in WAR and somehow got thrown into a level 20 BG. I didin't have any good weapons or armor but I was able to land blows and do some damage because the BG scaled me up to the appropriate level (completely by accident of course). Do this and world pvp might actually be fun for everyone instead of having high levels roaming around clubbing the helpless baby seals. I've been on both ends of that stick and frankly it's not satisfying either way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 02:00:11 PM
Quote
The reality of network latency and massively multiplayer games prevents The Elder Scrolls Online from following the real-time combat model that has driven the series since its inception

 :awesome_for_real:

So it's 13 years after EQ came out, but we're still bound by the same latency concerns as 1999? I don't buy this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on May 04, 2012, 02:12:59 PM
Quote
-The general art style is kind of like RIFT or Everquest 2: Ugh, really? not exactly inspiring here

I still come back to one of my major problems with SWTOR: art direction.  And funny enough, it was the same thing with EQ2.  A really weird kind of photorealism that made terrible faces.  And putting photoreal lions etc. next to fantasy meshed mobs made it all the more odd.  SWTOR was just great if you loved industrial architecture scenes, bad for faces and costumes and anything else.  Hope this will be different.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2012, 02:28:41 PM
So it's 13 years after EQ came out, but we're still bound by the same latency concerns as 1999? I don't buy this.

DDO came out in 2006, before this game even began development, and proved that real-time combat in an MMO was possible. TERA does it even better, and proves that latency isn't what is holding back MMO design at this point: it's a serious lack of creativity and an aversion to risk.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: murdoc on May 04, 2012, 02:43:55 PM
There is nothing about this game that looks interesting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 02:46:28 PM
So it's 13 years after EQ came out, but we're still bound by the same latency concerns as 1999? I don't buy this.

DDO came out in 2006, before this game even began development, and proved that real-time combat in an MMO was possible. TERA does it even better, and proves that latency isn't what is holding back MMO design at this point: it's a serious lack of creativity and an aversion to risk.

But it doesn't even require creativity. The games were already made. Even if you started this thing back in 2007, you had Oblivion to work off of. In fact it required a completely different approach than anything TES has ever been about to do this. It pisses me off to no end!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on May 04, 2012, 02:49:21 PM
Seriously - WHY are developers doing this?
Their world building features seem well suited for large projects like this. It was main reason BioWare picked it too, iirc -- the ability to drop multiple teams and content developer types into the zone(s) and just build. I don't know if the claim of "there’s never been anything like it!" is accurate anymore, but it quite likely was when they were starting work on this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 04:15:03 PM
Here is the first, "official" screenshot, released on Game Informer:


Quote
What’s going on here?
In this image, you can see a couple player characters battling some Storm Atronachs. Storm Atronach are a species of daedra (divine creatures that come from magical dimensions) that are constructed from stone and held together by magic. The most powerful of all the atronachs, Storm Atronach are immune to normal weapons and shock attacks, are resistant to poisons, and can reflect spells back at their caster.

Is that all?
Behind the battle is a series of daedric ruins. These great towers were built long ago by an ancient race of people, but they’re not the only landmarks players will discover throughout their journey. As players travel through Skyrim, Morrowind, Cyrodiil, and the rest of Tamriel they will encounter various dwarven ruins, ancient nordic tombs, decayed dwemer buildings, and many other ancient locales, some of which players may have discovered in previous Elder Scrolls games.

I still want more!
We know you do, but that’s all for today. If you missed it, Elder Scrolls Online’s first teaser trailer released earlier today, and check back next week for more exclusive Elder Scrolls content.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nonentity on May 04, 2012, 05:01:35 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Erseq.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/NPh0v.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/wV0Gu.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/kOJCL.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/uYGSS.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 05:03:53 PM
Ok, I'm having quite a gloomy evening for personal reasons, but you actually made me laugh with that  :grin: :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 04, 2012, 05:07:47 PM
So I don't see anything new here.  So hard classes, trinity, dungeons and everyone has the same resource mechanic: stamina?

At least start with hybrid combat like GW2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 04, 2012, 05:08:04 PM
Yea just saw that on Kotaku. Will say again: they need to shut up for awhile. Though of course, this isn't them actively talking. It's more the longtail of everyone parsing that article.

I can't say I blame Zenimax in their 2006/2007 decision to greenlight this. Subs are more profitable over time than one offs. And yes, just announcing a new MMO doesn't automatically mean you're announcing you're going to beat WoW. The size of the business is really every other game that isn't #1, the same for every genre. So maybe they're being responsible with their expectations.

But, they really do seem off the mark. Skyrim has evolved into full on Second Life mode at this point, and the ES series itself is a brand both in the world and in its (usually kinda experimental) game mechanics. You cannot outright ignore your core, or you're going to get the backlash that any label slap deserves, thus diluting your brand and its own future.

Maybe they don't care? Maybe I'm overthinking the value of the ES franchise and the size of the core.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 04, 2012, 05:14:19 PM
Quote
-There will be no player housing
What the....? So where am I supposed to store all my god damn cheeses?

Cheese wheel stacking. And, if you create the correct structures, it will spawn different cheesy adventures for your to experience.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 04, 2012, 05:21:24 PM
Maybe I'm overthinking the value of the ES franchise and the size of the core.

Skyrim is still the fifth or sixth best selling game on Steam most days, at $60.00, six months after it's release.  It's even beating out CoD.  I don't know of another PC franchise that has those kinds of legs, though on consoles it may be a different story.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 05:26:47 PM
Dear lord it just keeps getting worse. That screenshot!  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 05:37:59 PM
So I don't see anything new here.  So hard classes, trinity, dungeons and everyone has the same resource mechanic: stamina?

At least start with hybrid combat like GW2.

Did you read the article?  They specifically state that they are not trinity focused - any 5 characters with appropriate level/gear should be able to clear group content.  I think people need to take a step back and wait for more info.  So many assumptions being thrown around.  I can list at least 10 ways the article said the game will be different than WOW, but people are still calling it a WOW clone?  It lists more differences than GW2 does, but GW2 is the second coming of Jesus?

We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?

Give them a chance; the company hasn't even officially said a word yet, and there's more whine in this thread than all the vineyards of California.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 05:40:16 PM
Welcome to F13, bitch  :pedobear:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on May 04, 2012, 05:48:13 PM
So I don't see anything new here.  So hard classes, trinity, dungeons and everyone has the same resource mechanic: stamina?

At least start with hybrid combat like GW2.

Did you read the article?  They specifically state that they are not trinity focused - any 5 characters with appropriate level/gear should be able to clear group content.  I think people need to take a step back and wait for more info.  So many assumptions being thrown around.  I can list at least 10 ways the article said the game will be different than WOW, but people are still calling it a WOW clone?  It lists more differences than GW2 does, but GW2 is the second coming of Jesus?

We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?

Give them a chance; the company hasn't even officially said a word yet, and there's more whine in this thread than all the vineyards of California.

Meh, I can literally tell by that screenshot that this game is going to be disappointing.

These are the kinds of images Bethesda tends to market the Elder Scrolls games with.

Somewhat ironically, those inspire a much more "MMO" feeling in me than the actual MMO one, which inspires in me.... nothing... 

Just the screenshot choice alone tells me all I need to know.

I'm completely aware I may, several years and dozens of pages later in this thread, totally take this back, but fuck it it isn't f13 without doomcasting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 05:50:52 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!

No numbnuts. We have people on here saying it should be aim and click BECAUSE THE ELDER SCROLLS GAMES ARE AIM AND CLICK.

Also, I can list 10 ways it's exactly like WoW.

1 - Action bar
2 - Raids and Dungeons
3 - Classes
4 - Art Style
5 - Pitiful Attempt at E-Sport PvP
6 - Button Mashing Combat
7 - Don't Stand in the Fire!
8 - WoW Mechanics with TES style!
9 - Heroic modes!
10 - Fucking elves!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on May 04, 2012, 05:52:29 PM
10 - Fucking elves!
Is that a mini-game?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 04, 2012, 05:55:26 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?

Give them a chance; the company hasn't even officially said a word yet, and there's more whine in this thread than all the vineyards of California.

General impressions for TERA PvP seem to be that it works well, but there just isn't much structure in the game yet to support it (battlegrounds, etc). Regardless, the latency/"MMO" excuse for realtime action combat is a wash. You can also see DCUO for another example of realtime action combat that works fine for PvP in an MMO.

No numbnuts. We have people on here saying it should be aim and click BECAUSE THE ELDER SCROLLS GAMES ARE AIM AND CLICK.

Even the Gameinformer PR-BJ article that the quote is from acknowledges that realtime combat is "the model that has driven the series since its inception".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 05:58:28 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!

No numbnuts. We have people on here saying it should be aim and click BECAUSE THE ELDER SCROLLS GAMES ARE AIM AND CLICK.

Also, I can list 10 ways it's exactly like WoW.

1 - Action bar
2 - Raids and Dungeons
3 - Classes
4 - Art Style
5 - Pitiful Attempt at E-Sport PvP
6 - Button Mashing Combat
7 - Don't Stand in the Fire!
8 - WoW Mechanics with TES style!
9 - Heroic modes!
10 - Fucking elves!

1-4 & 10 - Haha, sounds like you are just mad it's a fantasy MMO.
5 - I don't like the sound of e-sport options either, but I'm hopeful that is just the Game Informer writer trying to sound hip.  Maybe they just said, "yeah, we'll have arenas too, with a leaderboard if people don't like large pvp battles."
6 - We'll have to wait and see it played before we can really call it button mashing, won't we?
7 - You saw a raid?
8 - Uh again, gonna have to wait and see.
9 - Extra content at top level?  Not sure why you hate this idea.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 04, 2012, 06:07:27 PM

No numbnuts. We have people on here saying it should be aim and click BECAUSE THE ELDER SCROLLS GAMES ARE AIM AND CLICK.
[snip...]
1 - Action bar
2 - Raids and Dungeons
3 - Classes
4 - Art Style

1-4 & 10 - Haha, sounds like you are just mad it's a fantasy MMO.

This is the problem.  Having classes and hotkey combat is not a staple of the fantasy genre, it's a trait of WoW and DIKU type MMOs specifically, and it's become so prevalent in the MMO genre that people forget that you can even do it any other way.  It is entirely possible to do a fantasy game without using classes, without using hotkeys or raids.  See, oh, just to pick a game at random, Skyrim, for example.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 06:15:10 PM

1-4 & 10 - Haha, sounds like you are just mad it's a fantasy MMO.

This is the problem.  Having classes and hotkey combat is not a staple of the fantasy genre, it's a trait of WoW and DIKU type MMOs specifically, and it's become so prevalent in the MMO genre that people forget that you can even do it any other way.  It is entirely possible to do a fantasy game without using classes, without using hotkeys or raids.  See, oh, just to pick a game at random, Skyrim, for example.

Classes were around before DIKU.  D&D for instance.  I know you don't have to have classes, and I do understand that some of you would rather have the old skill system.  I understand your beef that this isn't 'like Skyrim' also.  I just think we should all take a step back and wait for some more details before we decide how mad we are.  Maybe they have brilliantly designed classes that are really fun to play.  Maybe in action the game makes TERA's warrior dodge gimmick seem like a snore fest.

Now, that said - I'll stop chiming in here for a while and let you guys vent your rage in peace.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on May 04, 2012, 06:17:56 PM
Classes were around before DIKU.
Were they in TES though? I've only played Oblivion and Skyrim but I always thought the lack of classes was one of the features of the series as a whole?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 04, 2012, 06:19:14 PM
1-4 & 10 - Haha, sounds like you are just mad it's a fantasy MMO.
5 - I don't like the sound of e-sport options either, but I'm hopeful that is just the Game Informer writer trying to sound hip.  Maybe they just said, "yeah, we'll have arenas too, with a leaderboard if people don't like large pvp battles."
6 - We'll have to wait and see it played before we can really call it button mashing, won't we?
7 - You saw a raid?
8 - Uh again, gonna have to wait and see.
9 - Extra content at top level?  Not sure why you hate this idea.

Ah so it's your turn then.

If we took a "wait and see" attitude, we wouldn't bother posting on forums.

The hate isn't about "new MMO". There's been scores of those. It's more that they're taking a brand we've all loved as a specifically non-MMO game and are slapping it on an MMO.

Yes, there's no proof and we'll wait for demos and maybe love it and all that shit. Been doing that since we were arguing whether Lineage 1 was a valid comparison to UO  :awesome_for_real:

But, that article has said all the same things so many other fantasy MMOs have said that it's hard to see this as anything other than Zenimax taking Bethesda's brand and slapping it on a knockoff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 04, 2012, 06:19:43 PM
Bethesda has certainly not proved they can make a balanced skill system in their prior games; perhaps they are aware of this and that is why they're going with classes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 04, 2012, 06:23:21 PM
Bethesda has certainly...

Bioware AUSTIN Err...Zenimax Online Studios


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 06:24:13 PM
Bethesda has certainly not proved they can make a balanced skill system in their prior games; perhaps they are aware of this and that is why they're going with classes.

That's actually a very good point.  Let's be real:  Skyrim was a joke if you trained certain skills.
To answer an earlier post, I'm pretty sure even Arena was skill based.  I played it and I can remember wandering the countrside shooting fireballs at things to level up that skill.  Pretty sure it was that game anyway.  I bet Firor will be asked why they didn't go this route in an interview soon, and we'll all find out.  Hopefully it wasn't just an arbitrary decision.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 04, 2012, 06:29:04 PM
Classes were around before DIKU.
Were they in TES though? I've only played Oblivion and Skyrim but I always thought the lack of classes was one of the features of the series as a whole?

They've beein in TES before, yeah.  Daggerfall + Morrowind + Oblivion all had "classes" that defined which skills were major skills (which levelled up faster and determined your overall level gains) but they were pretty loose since you could still do just about everything with every character if you wanted, or design your own custom class.  The original Arena had more D&D type, hard coded classes and abilities, and didn't use the skills system that the later games did (your class defined the gear you could equip, the spells you could cast, and special abilities like crit damage, and you couldn't change any of that).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: FieryBalrog on May 04, 2012, 06:36:16 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?

Yes, because the Elder Scrolls games are widely beloved for their RvR, and not their real time combat and immersion and freewheeling world rules systems.

....

Gonna repeat what someone else said before: Make your own game. Making an Elder Scrolls MMO? Start with what is exciting about an Elder Scrolls MMO?. You don't START with a list of by the numbers bullet points, and hammer and beat up your brand to fit them. That's exactly what TOR did, and that's what Warhammer did, and it's just as stupid here. Why the fuck, when making a TES online game, is the first bullet point "Gotta have dat mass PvP! Spirit of the franchise right there, baby!"

Just because you personally still get super excited anytime someone pulls out the DAOC card, doesn't mean every franchise should be beaten into a DAOC shaped mold and baked in the oven. I mean apart from anything else, their lust for Camelot already has them mangling the shit out of the lore to beat the races into place.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on May 04, 2012, 06:46:31 PM
Classes were around before DIKU.
Were they in TES though? I've only played Oblivion and Skyrim but I always thought the lack of classes was one of the features of the series as a whole?

They've beein in TES before, yeah.  Daggerfall + Morrowind + Oblivion all had "classes" that defined which skills were major skills (which levelled up faster and determined your overall level gains) but they were pretty lose since you could still do just about everything with every character if you wanted, or design your own custom class.  The original Arena had more D&D type, hard coded classes and abilities, and didn't use the skills system that the later games did (your class defined the gear you could equip, the spells you could cast, and special abilities like crit damage, and you couldn't change any of that).
Aah, thanks for the summary. Now that you mention it I vaguely remember the major/minor thing from Oblivion although I had a stronger memory of having a sneaky tank-mage which is why I though it was classless. But as already said, maybe they thought everyone would make something like that and it would be a nightmare to balance and we'd end up with Champions Online 2  :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 04, 2012, 06:57:20 PM
Guys, when you run an MMO latency is magically 10 times worse than when you run an FPS, RTS, MOBA or anything else.

It's simple physics. I would explain it but it's so obvious it would be a waste of time.

As far as "I can name 10 ways this is not like WoW"....there are people who can name 10 ways that SWTOR is not like WoW, or 10 ways that Sony Smash Brothers is totally not Smash Brothers. It's pretty clear from their high level choices that the game is more WoW than Elder Scrolls. Camera - WoW. Combat - WoW. Levelling - WoW. If you think of basically every mechanic that makes an Elder Scrolls game an Elder Scrolls game this game lacks it.

It's like Elder Scrolls only with hotbar-based not-really-realtime combat, third person camera, classes instead of skill levelling...so basically not Elder Scrolls at all. It seems to me that if you read the list of features and left out mention of Elder Scrolls proper names you would never guess it was a Scrolls game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on May 04, 2012, 07:20:21 PM
Go to a town, kill ten somethings, collect ten somethings from the ground, get the asses of ten somethings, get the breadcrumb quest to the next town, repeat to max level.  Run regular dungeons until you achieve shoulders big enough to run hard mode dungeons, run those until you look ridiculous enough to handle raids, now run those until you earn the right to run hard mode raids, bitch about lack of content.  Daily quests, faction/rep grinding.  Battlegrounds --> pvp ranks --> pvp gear --> pwn noobs.  Tacked on crafting that is either completely useless or a must have advantage for the raiders/pvpers, likely both depending on whether you win the crafting skill lotto or not.  I truly hope i am wrong about any of this, but they started making this game in 07 right? there is no way they are making anything else and it will bomb.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 07:57:18 PM
Now, that said - I'll stop chiming in here for a while and let you guys vent your rage in peace.

Considering when you registered and what kind of odd hard-on you have for the game, AND what your first post was...

I'd say it's likely you're a mole anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 04, 2012, 08:01:10 PM
They should at least have a skill system like AC's, that approximates TES' skill system.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Jherad on May 04, 2012, 08:35:52 PM
I cannot overstate my complete lack of enthusiasm for this.

Excited then disappointed in the space of about 10 minutes.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 04, 2012, 08:58:26 PM
Now, that said - I'll stop chiming in here for a while and let you guys vent your rage in peace.

Considering when you registered and what kind of odd hard-on you have for the game, AND what your first post was...

I'd say it's likely you're a mole anyway.

I wish I was a mole, I could get some inside info and maybe get into beta.  I just signed up when the rumors of this leak came out on Tom's last month, cause I wanted to talk about it.  I've literally lurked around this forums since the Vanguard development days.  I was at the gym thinking about this thread, and I think I had an epiphany, though:

Many of you are mad cause you love TES.  I'll be honest, I've considered myself a fan of TES, but am I really?  I liked Arena and Daggerfall, but I think that's because I wasn't into MMO games back then (was EQ even out yet?) but, really, Morrowind was kinda a 'meh' for me.  Oblivion and Skyrim got old to me after a few hours.  I appreciated what they were trying to do, but they weren't near as fun for me as an MMO.

So, being honest, I can say that the reason I think I'm hopeful and excited about this game has very little to do with TES and a lot to do with the idea that a new game with a decent budget has come out and it seems to have a LOT of what made me love DAOC in it.  No combat like Skyrim? I don't give a shit.  The factions don't make sense?  Doesn't bother me in the least.  Graphics look different?  Don't care.

What I do care about:  

-No holy trinity.
-Visceral combat with style chains, blocks, sprint (sounds like DAOC 2 to me)  
-Open world persistent PVP area with many different types of objectives.  
-No quest hubs - seriously, this killed TERA for me.  
-PVP endgame designed from the start (not tacked on like retarded Ilum)
-Open dungeons - yes I miss Guk, and please, please let there be one in the PVP zone - Hello Darkness Falls?
-No skill bloat - from the article they want 'every skill to be meaningful' and you have to choose a few to have active at a time.
-Decent graphics (I know it's personal, but I liked the way the screenshots looked)

Anyway, I think I could come up with more, but I'm hoping more material will get revealed soon and I won't have to.

TLDR: Sorry to the fans of TES that feel betrayed, but frankly I am a much bigger DAOC fan than TES fan, and I'm glad things came out like this.  I hope I'm not alone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 04, 2012, 08:59:56 PM
The problem isn't that this game looks line a clone of WoW, it's that it looks like generic fantasy MMO #57, with the Elder Scrolls title + lore slapped on top. Their listed features so far read out like the most bland, generic MMO you could possibly make, and sounds nothing at all like something belonging in the Elder Scrolls universe.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Jherad on May 04, 2012, 09:14:04 PM
TLDR: Sorry to the fans of TES that feel betrayed, but frankly I am a much bigger DAOC fan than TES fan, and I'm glad things came out like this.  I hope I'm not alone.

I doubt you're alone, but they called it Elder Scrolls Online, and are clearly trying to appeal to fans of the franchise (whilst abandoning the things that define that franchise). That right there is setting it up for failure on an epic scale. The backlash (and negative PR) from the diehard TES fans is going to be spectacular.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 04, 2012, 10:21:19 PM
Corporate greed and fossils like Firor will continue to hold back the industry for years to come. Are consumers finally growing tired of repurchasing what's essentially the same game they have been playing since the 90s several times each year? I can only hope this one fails on an epic scale, and then serves as a warning to developers that try to follow the same path in the future.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 04, 2012, 10:32:48 PM
So it's 13 years after EQ came out, but we're still bound by the same latency concerns as 1999? I don't buy this.

Of course not, the modern electrical and optical signals are obviously much faster.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on May 04, 2012, 10:37:56 PM
We have people on here saying it should be aim and click combat cause by god DDO did it and so does TERA!!  Well, news flash, DDO and TERA don't have shit for pvp.  Maybe they tested stuff like that but it didn't work with 200+ people fighting in the same area?
Err... TERA is open world PVP on the PVP servers. Meaning yes, they do expect 200+ free for alls to break out in the same area, potentially.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 04, 2012, 10:43:33 PM
I'm about ready to go back to MUDS.  Not like much has friggin' changed.

(Thank you GW2 for giving me something to tickle my Explorer fancy.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on May 04, 2012, 11:11:03 PM
Ok, I'm having quite a gloomy evening for personal reasons, but you actually made me laugh with that  :grin: :grin:

Well struck Nonentity  +:grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 04, 2012, 11:18:26 PM
TLDR: Sorry to the fans of TES that feel betrayed, but frankly I am a much bigger DAOC fan than TES fan, and I'm glad things came out like this.  I hope I'm not alone.

If they'd named it DAOC2, I doubt any of us would feel betrayed. The problem is that when they did this with WAR, it didn't work.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 05, 2012, 12:19:07 AM
TLDR: Sorry to the fans of TES that feel betrayed, but frankly I am a much bigger DAOC fan than TES fan, and I'm glad things came out like this.  I hope I'm not alone.

If they'd named it DAOC2, I doubt any of us would feel betrayed. The problem is that when they did this with WAR, it didn't work.

This. DAOC2? sounds grand. DAOC2 masquerading as TESO? er. what?

Honestly? TESO should be all of the maps they've produced in one setting, with all sorts of random crap inhabiting every nook and cranny. Make it big. No, even bigger. Seriously. Make it skill based. Balance? F that. Allow balance to be emergent based on the rock / paper / scissor nature of heavy / light / cloth armor and what those allow you to do. Quests? More emergence based on NPC's reacting to what the mob's are doing.  In game guild factions? You can belong to one and that creates interaction possibilities. Mages Guild hates the thieves Guild who hates the Fighters guild and every hates the damn Brotherhood. Eternal war between Daedric and Divine factions. Get infected by lycanthropy or vampirism? fine. You're now PVP to everyone. Get caught stealing on a thieves quest? PVP+ till you die or escape. End game? fuck you. The end game is you've acquired mastery of one skill. Now go do shit. train other players. Clear out a Vampire warren. Whatever. If you want to raid dungeon instances go play something else.

In other words a big assed sandbox. would it succeed? No cue. But at least it would be different. And feel like a TES game.

What they proposed? None of the above.

Meh. Whatever. MMO's are boring anyway. Someone else go kill the rats.

/nerdrage


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on May 05, 2012, 01:33:10 AM
I can only hope this one fails on an epic scale, and then serves as a warning to developers that try to follow the same path in the future.

Don't we have SWOR for that already, or hasn't it imploded enough yet to put up the "beware, toxicly stale ideas here!"-sign up?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 05, 2012, 02:25:42 AM

-The game uses a hotbar to activate skills like other traditional MMOs
-Visually it looks like other Hero Engine MMOs like SWTOR
-The general art style is kind of like RIFT or Everquest 2
-There will be no player housing
-There will be no NPC romances or marriage
-"It needs to be comfortable for people who are comign in from a typical massively multiplayer game that has the same control mechanisms, but it also has to appeal to Skyrim players."
-"Recreateing the freedom Elder Scrolls players expect within the World of Warcraft-style mechanics Zenimax Online is using for this MMO would be impossible without changing the way that players interact with the world."
-The game uses MMORPG genre standards such as classes, experience points, and other traditional MMORPG progression mechanics, but they try to present it "around the core fantasy presented by traditiona Elder Scrolls games" such as traveling around and righting wrongs or seeking riches
-The game will have raids and heroic modes for its dungeons as end game content in addition to faction PvP
-Public dungeons are essentially instances that aren't actually instanced, so anyone can be in them, so imagine a World of Warcraft dungeon that featured everyone on the server in the area instead of just your party
-There are standard instanced dungeons as well
-The combat is based around a stamina bar which you can use to sprint, block, interrupt, and break incapacitating effects
-Blocking is the primary focus of these abilities, and can do things like stopping the secondary effects of attacks such as an ice spell slowing you
-Stamina also applies to PvP, so stamina management (and wearing down your enemy's stamina) is important, as your crowd control abilities might be on a long cooldown, and if you use them before the enemy player runs out of stamina, they will probably just block the effect
-ZeniMax feels that having the stamina bar will help break down the Holy Trinity as stamina allows you to do things like tank
-However, healing is still a big part of the game

Interest killed, mainly due to the bolded bits.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 05, 2012, 07:22:54 AM
Seriously. Make it skill based. Balance? F that. Allow balance to be emergent based on the rock / paper / scissor nature of heavy / light / cloth armor and what those allow you to do.

Skyrim with respecs.  Combine with aggressive patching for massive balance issues.  Launch it on all platforms.  Sleep on a bed stuffed with dollar bills.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 05, 2012, 09:25:00 AM
Don't we have SWOR for that already, or hasn't it imploded enough yet to put up the "beware, toxicly stale ideas here!"-sign up?

I was hating that game before it was cool to hate it. Of course nobody wanted to hear anything negative about that game since it was "FUCKIN BIOWARE DUDE".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 05, 2012, 09:40:30 AM
Interest killed, mainly due to the bolded bits.

I would be forced to bold the entire list so there's no point. They should really fire everyone responsible for the information released so far.  Proper PR and strategically missing bits of information would have most people swooning over this turd.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 05, 2012, 10:07:02 AM
Many of you are mad cause you love TES.  

Not mad at all and don't even like TES based on my Skyrim experience.

I'm settling in for the near-inevitable car crash.

Why is TESO set up for such problems? Because:

1) Skyrim worked because it was basically a big MMO world set up for one player. Every quest giver was just waiting for you, the Dragonborn / Listener / Head of Thieves Guild / Bard / Head Companion etc etc to come along and deliver their mail. This made a lot of players feel special. When there is a world full of players doing the same thing, running the same dungeons at the same time, it is going to be a lot less special.

2) Yeah, the mechanics sound weak right now. And that's because...

3) Development of this game started in 2007 (according to the above information) which is before a lot of things changed in the MMO industry. Sub-based titles are now going F2P to keep revenue up. SWOR launched with a bang and now looks to be in a hard decline. Plus back in 2007 there was still the thought that you could out-WoW if only you did <insert pet hypothesis>. Lots of titles have tried and none have succeeded in coming within even the same vague region of WoW's popularity, no matter what they did.

4) Matt Firor means nothing to me. Even if he personally coded every line of DAOC and launched it himself, it would still mean very little because MMO developers are almost guaranteed to fall over with their second attempt at a MMO, at least in the AAA space. About the only two I can think of who didn't are Scott Hartsman (EQ2 enhancement role to RIFT) and the former devs of Shadowbane who went on to develop Wizard 101.

5) DAOC's PvP is famous for its own issues (e.g. overpowered classes, the two strongest sides teaming up to beat up the smallest third side and steal all their relics) and that was back in a time when players were more accepting of those problems.

6) I've got no interest in DAOC either, and TESO will not be DAOC 2. Or even the version of DAOC that you liked the best, before whichever expansions / patches you thought ruined the game.

7) PC players are used to modding TES games until they get them to a point that they are happy with. Unless TESO is going to allow that kind of player involvement - and they aren't - then PC players will generally be forced to play TESO as the developers want them to play it. This is going to make the mod community unhappy.

8) My Skyrim experience was a lot of sneaking and ranged arrow attacks that one- or two-shot my targets. I don't think TESO is going to allow that under a DIKU-based title because then it makes melee combat skills completely redundant.

9) We've heard very similar promises before and they failed to deliver on them. I'm not expecting it to be different this time.

10) The TES lore (as shown in Skyrim) is incredibly bland. Interesting lore can get me into reading about a game, and TES lacks that.

I could keep coming up with reasons, but this is why I have little to no interest in TESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 05, 2012, 10:20:50 AM
I'm almost always optimistic at the release of a new MMO, but not this time. Making it a MMO already makes it completely unlike a TES game.  It might be a great MMO, but the gameplay will be unrecognizable to a TES player.

I'm not doomcasting, but it would be easier to shove an ironing board up a rhino's ass.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2012, 11:06:48 AM
I'm doomcasting. Because they aren't making a TES game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 05, 2012, 11:08:26 AM
They really should have named this something else. I've been a pretty big TES fan since Morrowind, and I'm also a big MMO fan, yet I have zero interest in this because it seems to be taking the worst of both worlds. Here's my list of "features" that kill my interest:
-There will be no player housing
-There will be no NPC romances or marriage
-"Recreateing the freedom Elder Scrolls players expect within the World of Warcraft-style mechanics Zenimax Online is using for this MMO would be impossible without changing the way that players interact with the world."
-The game uses MMORPG genre standards such as classes, experience points, and other traditional MMORPG progression mechanics, but they try to present it "around the core fantasy presented by traditiona Elder Scrolls games" such as traveling around and righting wrongs or seeking riches
-The combat is based around a stamina bar which you can use to sprint, block, interrupt, and break incapacitating effects
-Blocking is the primary focus of these abilities, and can do things like stopping the secondary effects of attacks such as an ice spell slowing you
-ZeniMax feels that having the stamina bar will help break down the Holy Trinity as stamina allows you to do things like tank
-However, healing is still a big part of the game
Also:
-Lolz srs PVP/RVR gaem gaiz!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on May 05, 2012, 11:18:17 AM
I have zero interest in this because it seems to be taking the worst of both worlds.

This pretty much sums it up. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 05, 2012, 11:40:27 AM
since I heard rumors of the MMO Matt Firor was working on in 2007, I've been waiting for this, and if you look at that article with non-jaded eyes, and give a little faith to Firor and his team, it's easy to still be excited.

There is not one, NOT ONE GODDAMN MMO DEV who has earned or deserves any sort of "FAITH" whatso-fucking-ever. A second look, maybe. Faith? Fuck a bunch of that. The history of MMO's is littered with shitpiles, bug-infested creaking wallet-sucking eye-gouging monstrosities that take your pretty faith and skullfuck it with the 16 Tentacles of Rapine.

MMO's are the playgrounds of little-minded smelly geeks who get moist at the thought of Gibson's Matrix and a sense of god-domain arrogance that their "Vision" can create a world that deserves a $15/month subscription fee. They are entirely too complex a creation for the level of sheer incompetence the games industry thrives on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 05, 2012, 01:03:08 PM
since I heard rumors of the MMO Matt Firor was working on in 2007, I've been waiting for this, and if you look at that article with non-jaded eyes, and give a little faith to Firor and his team, it's easy to still be excited.

There is not one, NOT ONE GODDAMN MMO DEV who has earned or deserves any sort of "FAITH" whatso-fucking-ever. A second look, maybe. Faith? Fuck a bunch of that. The history of MMO's is littered with shitpiles, bug-infested creaking wallet-sucking eye-gouging monstrosities that take your pretty faith and skullfuck it with the 16 Tentacles of Rapine.

MMO's are the playgrounds of little-minded smelly geeks who get moist at the thought of Gibson's Matrix and a sense of god-domain arrogance that their "Vision" can create a world that deserves a $15/month subscription fee. They are entirely too complex a creation for the level of sheer incompetence the games industry thrives on.

I think maybe you should stop playing MMOs if they are making you this angry.  I haven't spent hundreds (thousands) of hours in MMOs over the last 12 years or so because I was having a terrible time.  I like them.  Yeah, I get frustrated with design decisions, but if there are really bad (SWTOR) I just don't stick around.  Some have kept me busy off and on for years.  I really don't have any hate for any of the devs, even Brad M.  Matt Firor has had nothing to do with those 'shitpiles' you are referring to - he went from early DAOC to working on this game.  I'm gonna see how it turns out before I start freaking out, like many people are doing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 05, 2012, 01:27:37 PM
The main point is that the combat is based on the same stupid button-mashing-mmo-bar shit. Where was the action bar in TES stuff? I must have missed that one.

Yeah, if you really liked the TES (Skyrim) combat, I don't think I can say anything to sway you.  I thought it was clunky and lame compared to 2001 era DAOC with positional styles and follow up chains and reactionary styles.  Based on the article, TESO is going to have a similar system but much more advanced.

You thought live action combat was... clunky and lame compared to... DIKU hotbar combat... what is this, i don't even...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 05, 2012, 01:40:57 PM
I think maybe you should stop playing MMOs if they are making you this angry.  I haven't spent hundreds (thousands) of hours in MMOs over the last 12 years or so because I was having a terrible time.  I like them.  Yeah, I get frustrated with design decisions, but if there are really bad (SWTOR) I just don't stick around.  Some have kept me busy off and on for years.  I really don't have any hate for any of the devs, even Brad M.  Matt Firor has had nothing to do with those 'shitpiles' you are referring to - he went from early DAOC to working on this game.  I'm gonna see how it turns out before I start freaking out, like many people are doing.
And maybe, if they'd taken the name "daoc2" instead of "elder scrolls online", there'd be less nerdrage?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Maledict on May 05, 2012, 02:05:41 PM
I thought they trained paid shilles to post a few non-game related posts before going into forums with the innocent questions and cheer leading?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on May 05, 2012, 02:36:40 PM
Maybe it's Mr. Bloodworth's alt?  :grin:

As for a TES MMO, it's just a bad idea in general, and even more so trying to shoehorn it into a diku based MMO.  It's like they took a look at all the things that people enjoy about the TES games, and decided to do the opposite.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 05, 2012, 02:47:06 PM
LOL - starting to remember why I lurked here for so many years without posting.  I did have many a laugh over the years following the drama between some of you, but really - it is a bit too tiring to keep this up.  Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?  None of you guys that wanted to give Arenanet blowjobs are willing to admit that TESO seems to have many of the same ideas going into it that got you all excited?

And please with the shill comments.  I wish.  I'm a damn middle school teacher - I could use some extra money.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on May 05, 2012, 02:55:15 PM
Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool? 

Entirely probable.

But seriously, the reason this is getting such a strong reaction is because this is taking a very unique series that many of us legitimately love and basically making it look generic and uninteresting.  If this game was called "New MMO from Unknown Company with Original IP" it wouldn't have been met with anger here, but indifference.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 05, 2012, 03:29:48 PM
Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?  None of you guys that wanted to give Arenanet blowjobs are willing to admit that TESO seems to have many of the same ideas going into it that got you all excited?

I don't think it looks cool, the only thing that's been revealed so far is very high level conceptual stuff which is vague and unsubstatiated and a screenshot that radiates meh.  I'm not getting tight in the pants about a WoW clone just because the dev says it won't have quest hubs or something, that's a feature that's going to be a feather on top of the mountain of implemetation questions we know nothing about yet as far as I can tell.  This stuff can go either way, could be decent, could suck, who knows.

The only thing we DO know for certain, from what they're saying, is that this game has almost nothing to do with TES, which is why I, at least, am annoyed.

I can appreciate that you have faith in this Firor guy, but I don't know him from Adam, so I'm not going to base my opinion of the game on his involvement.

If, at some point in the future, they announce something substantial that I find interesting, I'm more than willing to revise my opinion, but at this point, all I'm seeing is either annoying or "answer unclear, ask again later" stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2012, 03:32:00 PM
since I heard rumors of the MMO Matt Firor was working on in 2007, I've been waiting for this, and if you look at that article with non-jaded eyes, and give a little faith to Firor and his team, it's easy to still be excited.

There is not one, NOT ONE GODDAMN MMO DEV who has earned or deserves any sort of "FAITH" whatso-fucking-ever.

I'd buy anything the Rift devs put out, they earned plenty of faith from me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 05, 2012, 04:38:21 PM
I'd buy anything the Rift devs put out, they earned plenty of faith from me.

Faith that they can make another mediocre game that loses over half of its subscribers in less than a year?  You can tell how well a game is doing by the number of special offers they send to your inbox each month.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on May 05, 2012, 06:47:07 PM
Mediocre compared to what? Rift is pretty much the best mmo currently live.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 05, 2012, 06:55:03 PM
Shit, I'll tell you right now that Rift is probably the healthiest of all the non-WoW games in terms of cost to sub ratio. Trion's going to last forever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 05, 2012, 07:36:54 PM
Rift is actually gaining subs right now if my web traffic is any sign.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 05, 2012, 08:10:14 PM
As someone who re-subbed to Rift a couple of days ago I'm getting a kick out of these replies.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 05, 2012, 09:21:23 PM
LOL - starting to remember why I lurked here for so many years without posting.  I did have many a laugh over the years following the drama between some of you, but really - it is a bit too tiring to keep this up.  Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?

Don't get all butthurt because we don't agree with you. Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR, if we had any left at all. If $300 gajillion and VO acting can't make a better gaming experience to action bar combat, and WoW itself can't stop tripping over it's own dick, exactly why should we be excited about seeing it AGAIN?

Did you not read in the article itself how many times they essentially apologized for the combat? They are already making excuses in a fucking preview. I really don't know how to explain it any better than that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: caladein on May 05, 2012, 09:27:50 PM
Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR, if we had any left at all.

I think you're mistaken.  *points at GW2 subforum*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 05, 2012, 09:45:42 PM
LOL - starting to remember why I lurked here for so many years without posting.  I did have many a laugh over the years following the drama between some of you, but really - it is a bit too tiring to keep this up.  Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?

Don't get all butthurt because we don't agree with you. Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR, if we had any left at all. If $300 gajillion and VO acting can't make a better gaming experience to action bar combat, and WoW itself can't stop tripping over it's own dick, exactly why should we be excited about seeing it AGAIN?

Did you not read in the article itself how many times they essentially apologized for the combat? They are already making excuses in a fucking preview. I really don't know how to explain it any better than that.

Yeah, and I'll be honest - the 4 or 5 times that guy who wrote the article, Adam Biessener, brought up comparisons to WoW, I shuddered.  I'm just hoping that he did that because his thought train was something like, "WoW is huge, and all my readers know WoW, I'll base comparisons on that game."  I really want to see some official verbage and some gameplay footage.  When is E3 again?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 05, 2012, 11:11:26 PM
Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR, if we had any left at all.

I don't know why you would do that. Pretty much all the information out of SWTOR development gave the same vibes as this press release.

"Don't really understand this whole MMO thing, but think we'd look good in money-hats".

Bioware believed their skill in story telling and IP was enough. This game seems to believe their IP is enough, which is pretty hilarious. And both believed they could pretty much get away with "same again" in terms of gameplay.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 06, 2012, 01:30:43 AM
Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?

Hi! You apparently missed my post a few pages ago wherein I specifically mentioned I wasn't hella jaded, even though I have every reason to be. So no, you're not alone.

I think, judging by what's been shown and mentioned, TESO looks terrible from the basic, conceptual level. It's another "me too" MMO that appears to be mixing Guild Wars with TBC-era WoW to make the game that isn't remotely close to what anyone who's clamored for a multiplayer Elder Scrolls for the past ten years has asked for. You're only excited about it because you're wanting DAoC Done Right™ without the first damn being given about what franchise has to be shoehorned around that concept. If not for Firor, you probably wouldn't even be in this thread.

Hell, I can virtually guarantee you that the old "three faction" magic bullet is going to be an abject failure from the get-go when you have race selection limited by faction when one of the three factions has both Nords and Dunmer, two of the most popular races in the entire franchise because of the high-profile games centered around their homelands and cultures. Not to mention another faction has the Altmer and Bosmer, which are two of the most reviled races in the series, and that was before Skyrim basically turned the Altmer into a nation of fascist warmongers.

It'll probably look more like a two-faction game by the time it's said and done.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 06, 2012, 01:49:50 AM
The whole '3 faction magic bullet' thing is bullshit anyway.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 06, 2012, 02:13:14 AM
I think maybe you should stop playing MMOs if they are making you this angry.

I actually have, thank you very much. The last MMO I paid for and played regularly was Lord of the Rings Online. I've played EQ2 and AOC since they went F2P, and I knew almost 2 years ago that SWTOR was never going to be worth a damn and my 30 minutes with the free trial only confirmed it. I still have hope that future MMO's won't suck - but outside of GW2, I don't see anything even being worth my time. This one really isn't.

As for Matt Firor, he worked on EQ1 and then DAoC, right? And as you say, he wasn't a huge part of DAoC's success. So why do you keep throwing his name around? He has no real resume to speak of.

I'm not freaking out, I'm saying that the list of features detailing what the game will be like sounds horribly, terribly generic, and all too similar to WoW with the only hook or differentiator being a setting whose previous games have been the exact opposite of what this game seems to be promising.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on May 06, 2012, 04:22:35 AM
Most of us poured our last bit of "hope" into SWTOR
Some of us didn't. :smug:

(And then we got yelled at by the hivemind)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 06, 2012, 06:28:42 AM
Besides, the reaction to TESO are likely to follow the f13.net cycle:

1) Hear about it, scoff at its potential to suceed
2) Hear more about it, get slightly excited about some of the features
3) Get into beta, think that if the devs can do the right thing they might deliver
4) Pre-launch, divide into the "it sucks" and "it's awesome" camps
5) Launch, and enter the Bat Country
6) Two weeks post-launch, the honeymoon is over, only the advocates remain


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Typhon on May 06, 2012, 08:24:39 AM
2.1) be a true visionary and realize that the game isn't going to be all that

7) cry about how the game ruined your innocence and you'll never fall in love again
7.1) crow about 'how you knew but no one would listen', call yourself Cassandra, start cross-dressing


...


ok, it kind of went off the rails at the Cassandra part, but up till then it was accurate


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 06, 2012, 08:55:45 AM
Besides, the reaction to TESO are likely to follow the f13.net cycle:

1) Hear about it, scoff at its potential to suceed
2) Hear more about it, get slightly excited about some of the features
3) Get into beta, think that if the devs can do the right thing they might deliver
4) Pre-launch, divide into the "it sucks" and "it's awesome" camps
5) Launch, and enter the Bat Country
6) Two weeks post-launch, the honeymoon is over, only the advocates remain

I'm usually very lonely in that camp, at least until stage 6 begins. Until then you are just a troll because you aren't on the bandwagon with everyone else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 06, 2012, 08:55:49 AM
Hey, I still think SWTOR is fun...as a leveling experience.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 06, 2012, 09:25:12 AM
Mediocre compared to what? Rift is pretty much the best mmo currently live.

So good that it's subforum sits in the graveyard with very little activity since last year? RIFT suffers from the same problems as TESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 06, 2012, 09:40:18 AM
Its funny, I recall Morrowind being slated to be a MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xanthippe on May 06, 2012, 09:54:55 AM
I'm about ready to go back to MUDS.  Not like much has friggin' changed.

(Thank you GW2 for giving me something to tickle my Explorer fancy.)

When you post things like this, you make me want to buy GW2, which I had decided not to buy.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xanthippe on May 06, 2012, 10:06:01 AM
LOL - starting to remember why I lurked here for so many years without posting.  I did have many a laugh over the years following the drama between some of you, but really - it is a bit too tiring to keep this up.  Am I really the only MMO gamer who reads these forums that isn't too jaded and super snarky to say that this game looks cool?  None of you guys that wanted to give Arenanet blowjobs are willing to admit that TESO seems to have many of the same ideas going into it that got you all excited?

And please with the shill comments.  I wish.  I'm a damn middle school teacher - I could use some extra money.

No, I'm cautiously looking forward to this as well. I have played only Oblivion of TES. Mostly played the first part of the game over and over because I didn't like how my characters were progressing. (I vaguely recall trying to craft and having that affect the strength of my enemies, or something.)

I thought Oblivion was a very pretty world, and would make a nice mmo setting.

This has some potential to scratch some of my gaming itches. I'll wait to see when the beta rolls around, as every game's promises change a great deal when it's still a year or more out.

(Don't let yourself be bothered overly much by the overly cynical of F13. Former optimists make the worst cynics ever.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 06, 2012, 11:01:32 AM
Besides, the reaction to TESO are likely to follow the f13.net cycle:

1) Hear about it, scoff at its potential to suceed
2) Hear more about it, get slightly excited about some of the features
3) Get into beta, think that if the devs can do the right thing they might deliver
4) Pre-launch, divide into the "it sucks" and "it's awesome" camps
5) Launch, and enter the Bat Country
6) Two weeks post-launch, the honeymoon is over, only the advocates remain

I'm usually very lonely in that camp, at least until stage 6 begins. Until then you are just a troll because you aren't on the bandwagon with everyone else.

You're very brave, standing alone yelling at clouds.  How's that onion on your belt?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 06, 2012, 12:45:08 PM
Just imagine how things would have turned out if all games had evolved like MMOs. (http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7682/mnmm.png)




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 06, 2012, 03:51:08 PM
If you guys aren't tired of the 'angry hitler' meme and can use a laugh, I thought this was funny and on topic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKTj7SITUZo


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 06, 2012, 04:08:34 PM
Oh trust me, we are tired of the "angry hitler" meme. Or at least I am.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Azazel on May 07, 2012, 02:57:00 AM
.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Azazel on May 07, 2012, 03:05:05 AM
Go to a town, kill ten somethings, collect ten somethings from the ground, get the asses of ten somethings, get the breadcrumb quest to the next town, repeat to max level.  Run regular dungeons until you achieve shoulders big enough to run hard mode dungeons, run those until you look ridiculous enough to handle raids, now run those until you earn the right to run hard mode raids, bitch about lack of content.  Daily quests, faction/rep grinding.  Battlegrounds --> pvp ranks --> pvp gear --> pwn noobs.  Tacked on crafting that is either completely useless or a must have advantage for the raiders/pvpers, likely both depending on whether you win the crafting skill lotto or not.  I truly hope i am wrong about any of this, but they started making this game in 07 right? there is no way they are making anything else and it will bomb.

I must say, dear friend. This theoretical game you're describing sounds just right for me. If only someone would make something like this, I'd play it in an instant! When does TESO launch?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on May 07, 2012, 03:09:35 AM
Are we not spoilering NSFW images now?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Azazel on May 07, 2012, 04:13:04 AM
I took that one from Edge magazine, and it may as well be 8-bit for all it's fidelity, but point taken.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 07, 2012, 05:21:24 AM
Its funny, I recall Morrowind being slated to be a MMO.
Quote
(qK) (Mesmerist) Will there be multiplayer in Morrowind?
(qK) AND in relation
(qK) (S_A_M[Gamekapocs]) How can we play over the net? Through an existing system (bnet, zone, ..), your own servers, (qK) or only TCP/IP? Or anyone can install a program to his server, like quake or UT?

(KenRolston) Nope.
(todd[Bethesda]) Sure.
(todd[Bethesda]) Oops. I mean no.
(KenRolston) You LIAR!
* GT_WormGod snickers
(Pete) No. Not on release, not three months after, no no no

(Chris) Any plans for multiplayer as an add-on? :)

(todd[Bethesda]) Sure.
(todd[Bethesda]) Oops I mean no.
(GT_WormGod) only in a rerun
(KenRolston) Oh, what a liar he is.
(Maverique) he smiles so innocently tho
(todd[Bethesda]) Already done. it's a secret. We have hotseat play. One person moves, while the other turns...all on the same computer!
(KenRolston) We ARE doing a MMORPG. We just are eliminating all the tiresome other players.
(KenRolston) We don't want to play with Nude4Satan.
(GT_WormGod) um, thanks Ken
(todd[Bethesda]) OK. There is NOOOOOOOO Multiplayer. No kidding here. We're concentrating on single-player. There are better games out there for multi-play. Better to have one great game, than 2 average ones.
(KenRolston) Or, alternatively, we cna go into the editor, name all the NPCs "kid_nekkid," then go smack the living shit out of them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 07, 2012, 11:12:44 AM
I took that one from Edge magazine, and it may as well be 8-bit for all it's fidelity, but point taken.



Could have used a NSFW warning there, in addition to the spoilertag.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 07, 2012, 03:48:16 PM
Twenty minute interview with creative director here: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/07/the-challenge-of-elder-scrolls-online-an-interview-with-the-creative-director.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 08, 2012, 04:16:29 AM
Twenty minute interview with creative director here: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/07/the-challenge-of-elder-scrolls-online-an-interview-with-the-creative-director.aspx

Quite a generic interview: the only highlight seem the three faction PvP feature, which I'm sure it may be fun for those who are into that kind of MMOG sub-system. Beside that, among the vague answers, he just confirms what we read in the GI article.

I'm no designer for sure, so I can't judge, but I'm not really sold on Paul Sage as Creative Director: I know him for his work on UO (designer then Lead Designer during the "Third Dawn" era) and Tabula Rasa: at least when he was in charge, I mostly remember half assed systems coming out in those games. Passion surely is helpful (and he shows it throughout the interview), but it's not everything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 08, 2012, 09:59:09 AM
I wanted to claw my eyes out around 3:20 of that interview.  "Interactivity" means there are chests and barrels in cities that you can click on and look inside, but since it's an MMO with an economy to manage, those barrels will all be empty.

...is this releasing in 1999 or something?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on May 08, 2012, 11:17:00 PM
I don't think I can think of any other game whose announcement was met with such near-universal negativity. It's a new record, even for MMOs.

The idea of an MMO Elder Scroll game is such a cool one, why did they have to go and do this :( Just about all of the decent things they've announced as features will be found in GW2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on May 09, 2012, 12:15:33 AM
For all my bitching about how games require innovation to be successful, Jay Wilson hit nail on head by asking whether we'd rather play innovative games or well executed games.  Innovation last for minutes, execution lasts for much, much longer. 

TES games were always fun and quirky, but some of the best fun and quirky games in the fantasy rpg genre.  Unfortunately, people don't play fun and quirky MORGs for longer than the box free month. 

So they're looking to launch a game when:  a. people are burning out on the genre, b. it costs too much to put a AAA title to market c. market is utterly over saturated with fantasy MORGs.

The deck is completely stacked against them, and I'm not sure why their analysts think continuing is a good thing. 

Personally, I would have been more excited had they said they're working on a persistent single-player/co-op/4 player world that grows by province over time.  Let me connect to Tamriel with three of my buddies, ramp up the difficulty with more people.  Win.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 09, 2012, 12:58:10 AM
This announcement is just tone-deaf. The response is universally negative because the pitch is basically "do you like The Elder Scrolls except for all the game systems? Then we have the game for you!"

It's very hard to understand who is supposed to be excited about this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on May 09, 2012, 01:28:43 AM
Jay Wilson hit nail on head by asking whether we'd rather play innovative games or well executed games. 

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Do games have an iLvl budget or something?

Also there's a difference between "not amazingly innovative" and "exactly the same shit we've seen try to compete with WoW and fail over and over and over again for years now".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 09, 2012, 02:11:43 AM
TES games were always fun and quirky, but some of the best fun and quirky games in the fantasy rpg genre.

... They are? I thought they were generally stodgy, ugly, terrible (before the modders fixed it) and the only game in town. Most other studios moved to much more focused, flashy, directed and short games leaving TES looking like some archaic hold-over but also the best of breed for those who still wanted that sort of gaming. In fact their games improved a lot when they got a injection of new ideas from gaining the fallout IP.

I'd be happier if they'd looked at ME3 and gone for a rich single player experience with co-op or multi-player extensions to it. That would have been a good transition into the MMO market. But regardless of that the announcement does a really poor job of selling the game as anything interesting. It more or less says "more of the same, from a design locked down when WoW was ascendant" and they should have known what was coming.

Then again, they've never been all that great at sales flash I guess.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on May 09, 2012, 02:18:09 AM
Sheepherder, where did u get that chat log from. sounds insane.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on May 09, 2012, 02:34:41 AM
Google tells me it's from here (http://morrowind.ttlg.com/features/velog.shtml). VoodooExtreme... man, that's so 1990s.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Murgos on May 09, 2012, 07:02:05 AM
I'll come back in three years when they are closer to releasing, or at least having a real product.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 09, 2012, 11:49:52 AM
sounds insane.
Quote
(Pete) there will be lots of nudity once the gamers get their hands on the editor, but none before then.
:awesome_for_real:

Google hit on this site (http://planetelderscrolls.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=27) for me.  It's more or less the same repost as Zetor provided.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 09, 2012, 12:00:28 PM
I'll come back in three years when they are closer to releasing, or at least having a real product.

I was going to say something about the fact that it's already five years in development and will be hitting in 2013, but on second thought that doesn't really change your statement much.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 09, 2012, 03:48:52 PM
Video interview with Matt Firor (6 minutes long) ; talks about giving a great PvE experience while providing a kickass PvP one; motivation for setting the game lore in the past; involvement of Todd Howard and the other Bethesda guys; more fluff.

Most interesting thing: the traditional Elder Scrolls tunes playing in the background  :grin:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/09/the-origins-of-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 09, 2012, 04:04:28 PM
Hilarious part of that interview to me:

Quote
The naming it actually proved to be somewhat of an excercise. We started with Elder Scrolls: Online. Then we came up with Elder Scrolls Origins. The problem with origins is when we start to do expansions the name doesn't make sense. The Elder Scrolls Origin Second expansion? We did consider other names, the marketing guys whiteboarded a bunch of names that didn't make the cut. Tamriel was on that list. Really, we just went back to the easy decision which was The Elder Scrolls Online. Elder Scrolls Online, nice and easy, it says it all.

That naming the game was too tough, so we just did the easy thing and moved on. That's the kind of guy I want heading up my project, right there.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 10, 2012, 11:35:59 PM
It's very hard to understand who is supposed to be excited about this.

That sums it up for me as well.

I'm conditioned to gnash teeth during the process when all the early over the top promises devolve during development. I'm not conditioned to developers promising to do nothing more than be competent.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 11, 2012, 02:56:32 AM
The deck is completely stacked against them, and I'm not sure why their analysts think continuing is a good thing.  

Their analysts in 2007 thought it looked like a good idea.

And that's the problem with MMO development. It takes 5 years or longer to get something out the door, by which time the market has completely shifted.

Jay Wilson hit nail on head by asking whether we'd rather play innovative games or well executed games. 

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Do games have an iLvl budget or something?

They aren't mutually exclusive, just hard to pull off right the first time. Given that MMO players tend not to hang around as long as they once did, getting it right the first time has become increasingly important.

Plus what people generally (say they) want is some kind of revolutionary innovation that stands out and changes everything, not an evolutionary innovation that tweaks / improves an existing system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 11, 2012, 10:05:09 PM
It's kind of depressing when you realize they've got virtually nothing they can salvage from this if it flops or if they pull the plug.

-IP?  Nope, they were just borrowing one that already existed
-Engine? It's just the Hero Engine.
-Art assets? They were built for the Hero Engine, so they look like ass compared to anything TES fans are used to.
-Radical new systems/tech? They appear not to have come up with any.

IMHO, if you're going to fail, fail like Turbine failed with AC2; structure your failure in such a way that you walk away with assets you can make good use of going forward. (In Turbine's case, the engine that ended up powering DDO and LoTRO)  The larger an MMO project like this gets, the less sticking that with something prefab and generic like the Hero Engine to cut costs makes sense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 11, 2012, 10:44:33 PM
-Art assets? They were built for the Hero Engine, so they look like ass compared to anything TES fans are used to.

How quickly we forget how ugly every single pre-Skyrim game was. (At least the models.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 11, 2012, 10:53:34 PM
Morrowind was awesomely hideous.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 12, 2012, 02:26:09 AM
"Awesomely hideous" wasn't the first thought which entered my mind, actually. In fact, I didn't even think much about the graphics when I did a quick test run just now (just to make sure I didn't just look back all rosey-eyed on it).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 12, 2012, 02:34:15 AM
Aside from some of the character heads and models, I still don't mind Morrowind's graphics. They're pretty much at the top tier for the era the game was developed in, but people still comment on them a lot because of the constant exposure Morrowind's kept over the past ten years, especially on platforms like Steam.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 12, 2012, 02:37:59 AM
My feeling at the time when it came out was that it was the ugliest new game I had ever played. The faces are just awful.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 12, 2012, 04:08:13 AM
Argonians were far and away the worst.  Didn't improve much in Oblivion.  Look good in Skyrim.  I actually started the TES series with Daggerfall, but it was so buggy on my PC that I didn't get far at all.  Don't remember how they looked there.

Skyrim has spoiled me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: kildorn on May 12, 2012, 04:14:58 AM
Quality and polish wise, Skyrim is not the norm for TES games. Skyrim blindsided everyone by being a really good game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 12, 2012, 09:52:52 AM
Damn you infidels! ESO will have something for everyone, as you can read in the following, new article on Game Informer!

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/11/what-elder-scrolls-online-offers-skyrim-fans-mmo-players.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 12, 2012, 10:03:41 AM
So it'll be even more expensive than SWTOR. Promising start. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Selby on May 12, 2012, 10:10:45 AM
"Awesomely hideous" wasn't the first thought which entered my mind, actually. In fact, I didn't even think much about the graphics when I did a quick test run just now (just to make sure I didn't just look back all rosey-eyed on it).
Eh, everything was a different shade of brown when I played it.  The models were a little wonky looking at times, but what really sticks in my mind is the brown... everywhere.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on May 12, 2012, 10:47:31 AM
"Nonetheless, writing off ESO as “just another MMO” or “WoW with daedra” is doing this ambitious project a grave disservice."

Sure thing buddy. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 12, 2012, 11:07:19 AM
I always like finding the important stuff in these dry hump previews!

-Some things, like player housing, aren’t making the transition to an MMO because of the constraints inherent to an online game, but Zenimax Online is including everything that makes sense. (Housing didn't make sense because you couldn't own houses in the other games)

-ESO’s public dungeons, unless Zenimax Online badly botches the design, should recreate some of what made BRD special...but hopefully without the painful process of finding a group (gotta love when a hump piece reminds you that something was painful and could be botched)

-Take out the server-crashing lag, since the engine can handle up to 200 players onscreen and Zenimax Online has still-under-wraps plans to divert excess population. (SECRET PLANS! That'll solve the unsolveable up to now!)

-ESO has lock-on targeting and a hotbar, but it shakes up quite a bit within that framework. Limiting the number of available skills to a handful (currently six, but that number could change) but making each ability awesome sounds great. (Less stuff = innovation)

-Outside of flashpoints, cooperating with other players in SW:TOR is extremely limited in scope. That hopefully won’t be the case in ESO. (we don't know, but we're HOPING!)

-The baseline solo encounter design has players taking on three enemies at a time, and they work together to bring you down by combining skills like lighting oil patches on fire. (Like Dragon Age circa 3 years ago!)

-Rifts are amazing, and Zenimax Online hopes to recreate the sense of working together with random strangers with the Fighters Guild content as well as public dungeons. (HOPE AND CHANGE!)

-Fans of the franchise have a lot of questions yet to be answered, like how the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood will work in an MMO setting and how Zenimax Online is going to approximate the rich interactions with objects in the world that we’ve gotten used to since Morrowind. (or like, Hey why is the combat completely different?)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 12, 2012, 11:31:06 AM
-The baseline solo encounter design has players taking on three enemies at a time, and they work together to bring you down by combining skills like lighting oil patches on fire. (Like Dragon Age circa 3 years ago!)

Or City of Heroes circa 2005.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on May 12, 2012, 05:06:31 PM
Sounds like wank.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on May 12, 2012, 08:21:21 PM
Hasn't every MMO in the past 8 years talked about how you take on multiple mobs at once?

In the end 3 mobs with 1/3 the damage and hp is the same anyway...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on May 12, 2012, 08:33:27 PM
-ESO has lock-on targeting and a hotbar, but it shakes up quite a bit within that framework. Limiting the number of available skills to a handful (currently six, but that number could change) but making each ability awesome sounds great. (Less stuff = innovation)

"We have plans for a console release at some point."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 12, 2012, 08:55:57 PM
In the end 3 mobs with 1/3 the damage and hp is the same anyway...

Your math is off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 13, 2012, 07:57:23 PM
You know, when I was playing Skyrim with a follower I was thinking "you know they could expand this into a co-op game and it could work like this."

This isn't going to work. I stand with the prophets of DOOOOOOM!!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 14, 2012, 08:01:21 AM
Instead of TES MMO they should just make Skyrim SMO (Somewhat Multiplayer Online-ish).  Change absofuckinglutely zero of the systems, because fuck balance in the earhole.  Skyrim single player is a fucking astonishing game.  Skyrim 2 Co-op would be fantastic.  Skyrim Diku toolbar clicking raiding PvP bullshit is going to fail horrendously.  They will remove absolutely everything that makes Skyrim great.  Including the graphics for some reason I cannot wrap my head around.

Do Not Want.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 14, 2012, 08:16:21 AM
-Art assets? They were built for the Hero Engine, so they look like ass compared to anything TES fans are used to.

One is not connected to the other.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 14, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
I fucking love this paragraph.

Quote
ESO has lock-on targeting and a hotbar, but it shakes up quite a bit within that framework. Limiting the number of available skills to a handful (currently six, but that number could change) but making each ability awesome sounds great.

Yes, because most MMO devs set out to make sure at least half of all abilities are the opposite of awesome.

The rest of the article is a bit hard to understand with so much cock in the writer's mouth.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 14, 2012, 12:27:11 PM
Tab target/hotbar combat is a huge turn off.  I'm still waiting and see right now until I can see what kind of content they have.  I'm pretty sure it's just more of the same.  Nothing screams different to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 14, 2012, 12:44:20 PM
Quote from: HaemishM

The rest of the article is a bit hard to understand with so much cock in the writer's mouth.

Such a cryptic statement.

 :grin:
---

Oh, here is a new article on Game Informer related to their intentions with the game music:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/12/talking-about-the-music-of-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

After reading a bit more carefully, I realize it's different, but for a moment I thought those guys were actually talking about iMuse like it was a new thing :P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LucasArts#iMUSE


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 15, 2012, 12:12:22 PM
Instead of TES MMO they should just make Skyrim SMO (Somewhat Multiplayer Online-ish).  Change absofuckinglutely zero of the systems, because fuck balance in the earhole.  Skyrim single player is a fucking astonishing game.  Skyrim 2 Co-op would be fantastic.  Skyrim Diku toolbar clicking raiding PvP bullshit is going to fail horrendously.  They will remove absolutely everything that makes Skyrim great.  Including the graphics for some reason I cannot wrap my head around.

Do Not Want.

Agreed. One of the hallmarks of a marture organization is knowing then you're just churning. Fine, they payed for the Hero Engine so they want to get some return on that investment. Fine, a MMO would help recoup the licensing fees and dev cost with box and subscriptions. If its an innovative product. This is a train wreck. Pull the damn plug, fire some people and have a large assed 'lessons learned' meeting allowing the survivors to start over from square one.

This project is just brain dead - praying that inertia will result in profit.

Zenimax is not fucking GM. Will Not Work.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 15, 2012, 12:36:18 PM
I agree, the best case scenario is the scrap the project before they dump another year of development costs, salaries, and fees into a project that will do nothing but damage the brand. I seriously doubt that the game will recoup enough in 2013 to make up for the interval costs associated with the interim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 15, 2012, 01:32:14 PM
Even in the very unlikely event that they do scrap 5 years or work and start over, who knows what the MMO landscape will look like in 2017. A 2012 design from a team that lacks the desire to innovate is likely to look just as tired in 2017 as TESO looks now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 15, 2012, 01:41:58 PM
No, no. Scrap the MMO idea. Roll the team into Elder Scrolls 6: Hammerfell. Make it with a multiplayer co-op element.

Profit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 15, 2012, 01:53:31 PM
What he said.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 15, 2012, 01:57:36 PM
One of the 3 playable factions, The Daggerfall Covenant (Bretons, Orcs, Redguards):

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/14/elder-scrolls-online-faction-profile-daggerfall-covenant.aspx



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 15, 2012, 02:10:29 PM
No, no. Scrap the MMO idea. Roll the team into Elder Scrolls 6: Hammerfell. Make it with a multiplayer co-op element.

I don't know, wouldn't network latency be an issue for a multiplayer Elder Scrolls game?  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 15, 2012, 02:29:22 PM
One of the 3 playable factions, The Daggerfall Covenant (Bretons, Orcs, Redguards):

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/14/elder-scrolls-online-faction-profile-daggerfall-covenant.aspx



Hang on, they're doing this by race?  The fuck?  The time period for this game is supposed to be after the unification of the Empire, is it not?  So why are the factions racial?  And Orcs teaming up with Bretons?  Isn't that in contradiction of the timeline?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 15, 2012, 02:49:40 PM
This is The Elder Scrolls: the old Repulbic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 15, 2012, 03:05:33 PM
This is The Elder Scrolls: the old Repulbic.

Yeah, that's the problem.  This takes place something like halfway through the second era, does it not?  Orsinium has been in rubble for centuries, after being destroyed by Daggerfall, and the entire continent has been united under the empire for hundreds of years, I'm not seeing where this faction makes any sense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 15, 2012, 04:06:24 PM
DAoC2: The Elder Scrolls: Hammerfell Boogaloo


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 15, 2012, 05:43:17 PM
I just have this image of the CIO screaming in incoherent rage for 5 minutes once they figure out the state of this thing, his head exploding, and the resulting rage zombie hunting down everyone involved for repeated defensteration.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 15, 2012, 06:38:17 PM
This is The Elder Scrolls: the old Repulbic.

Yeah, that's the problem.  This takes place something like halfway through the second era, does it not?  Orsinium has been in rubble for centuries, after being destroyed by Daggerfall, and the entire continent has been united under the empire for hundreds of years, I'm not seeing where this faction makes any sense.

I'm no TES lore monkey, but there are some serious lore geeks over on the official fourms who have explained, within the lore, how these factions make sense 'just fine.'

If this game is going to suck, I don't think it will be because they butcher the lore.  Sure, there are other concerns, and I will grant that they are valid concerns for now.  I want to see what comes out of E3, though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 16, 2012, 01:02:28 AM
I want to see what comes out of E3, though.

What will come out of E3 will be something that:
- Looks far worse than Skyrim
- Has boring ass toolbar/Diku/cooldown combat
- Has some kind of raid mechanic
- Has meaningless PvP
- Will cater to the usual bullshit needs of the MMO crowd
- Has the usual Collect 10 Bandit Anuses quests
- Is no more fun than any current MMO
- Is not Elder Scrolls 6: Co-op (or even just single player)
- Is a complete waste of resources

I mean, come on.  I am not saying there isn't a place for traditional MMOs in this world.  But why take something amazing and water it down like this?  Fuck me.  The worst thing about this project by far is that it will take time, money, resources and effort away from what they should be doing instead. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 09:15:42 AM
I want to see what comes out of E3, though.

What will come out of E3 will be something that:
- Looks far worse than Skyrim
Eh, kinda a matter of opinion, no?  I thought Skyrim vistas were great, but look at anything up close and it turned to shit.  Plus it was a pretty damn limited color palette, especially once you got inside any dungeon (basically the same greyish blue/green/brown depending on light.
- Has boring ass toolbar/Diku/cooldown combat
Another matter of opinion.  The most exciting games I've played use a toolbar.  DAOC was toolbar/diku based and still you had to time your positional, reactive and follow-up styles, while managing your endurance.  This game sounds to be similar.  I'm onboard for that.
- Has some kind of raid mechanic
Yes - like you said, though, there's nothing wrong with an MMO being an MMO.
- Has meaningless PvP
You are really shooting in the dark on this one.  I think the PVP will be far more meaningful than any other MMO pvp currently on the market. (other than some tiny audience ones with huge flaws in other gameplay aspects)
- Will cater to the usual bullshit needs of the MMO crowd
Yes - this IS an MMO...
- Has the usual Collect 10 Bandit Anuses quests
Maybe some, but I'm onboard because they offer a hubless quest system.  This won't be like that rediculous Korean game where you have to go from one hub to the next collecting 50 quests to collect bear assess for each person.  Released info stresses the ability to explore and discover content naturally without the need for NPC standing around with a big yellow exclamation point on their head.
- Is no more fun than any current MMO
Doubt you are right here, as far as many of us are concerned.  I'm not really having fun in ANY current MMO, but I probably would if I resubbed to DAOC, as sad as that game has become population-wise.  This game really doesn't have to achieve much to be more fun than the current crop of top MMOs.
- Is not Elder Scrolls 6: Co-op (or even just single player)
No...you can wait for that from Bethesda.  Have fun playing a piece of shit console to PC port with dumbed down RPG stats and boring ass combat where you do this: swing, backstep, swing, backstep, swing, backstep.  OR - if you are caster: fireball, fireball, fireball, fireball.  Woohoo.
- Is a complete waste of resources
I disagree.

I mean, come on.  I am not saying there isn't a place for traditional MMOs in this world.  But why take something amazing and water it down like this?  Fuck me.  The worst thing about this project by far is that it will take time, money, resources and effort away from what they should be doing instead. 

Judging from your post, you aren't the target audience.  I can say that unless they completely botch this game and it performs awfully with constant crashes or something, many of us will be buying for 1 of 3 reasons:
1 - It might be the spiritual successor to DAOC
2 - It's a chance to really explore Tamriel in a social environment
3 - We are not impressed with the current crop of MMO's and don't mind trying something else

I fit all 3 of those categories, so, yeah, I'll probably be there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 16, 2012, 09:28:01 AM
No one who likes The Elder Scrolls is the target market for this.

So far this makes as much sense as an X-com FPS.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 16, 2012, 09:37:46 AM

Judging from your post, you aren't the target audience.  I can say that unless they completely botch this game and it performs awfully with constant crashes or something, many of us will be buying for 1 of 3 reasons:
1 - It might be the spiritual successor to DAOC
2 - It's a chance to really explore Tamriel in a social environment
3 - We are not impressed with the current crop of MMO's and don't mind trying something else

I fit all 3 of those categories, so, yeah, I'll probably be there.

Why people see 3 factions and automatically think it's a DAOC successor is beyond me.  It's no different than saying if WOW added a third faction, it's automatically DAOC.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 16, 2012, 10:02:48 AM
3 - We are not impressed with the current crop of MMO's and don't mind trying something else
Yeah, see - that's where it all falls apart. From what they've described so far, this ISN'T "something else". It's not an Elder Scrolls game, and it's not "something else". It's a rehash/mashup of DIKU-muds we've already played. Just re-arranging bits and pieces here and there does not "something else" make.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 16, 2012, 10:04:26 AM
I sent a detailed email to Bethesda and Zenimax today suggesting that they reconsider this project.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 10:20:36 AM
Why people see 3 factions and automatically think it's a DAOC successor is beyond me.  It's no different than saying if WOW added a third faction, it's automatically DAOC.

C'mon, Draegan - you run a network of gaming sites and that's the best you can come up with?  People are thinking this might be more like DAOC than, for instance, WOW with 3 factions because:
1 - it DOES have 3 factions
2 - it's being made by Matt Firor and many of the original DAOC RVR programmers
3 - those guys had nothing to do with WAR, having left Mythic prior to that
4 - the system of interrupts, endurance management and style chains described sounds much like DAOC combat with a new polish


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 10:25:43 AM
I sent a detailed email to Bethesda and Zenimax today suggesting that they reconsider this project.

I'm sure they'll get your email and immediately notify their investors that they are halting the project.  Surely there's no need to worry about hundreds of millions of dollars spent, or the product of 250 employees working for 5 years being tossed down a drain because of how one very influential emailer felt when he read some pre-release info!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 16, 2012, 10:40:16 AM
Why people see 3 factions and automatically think it's a DAOC successor is beyond me.  It's no different than saying if WOW added a third faction, it's automatically DAOC.

C'mon, Draegan - you run a network of gaming sites and that's the best you can come up with?  People are thinking this might be more like DAOC than, for instance, WOW with 3 factions because:
1 - it DOES have 3 factions
2 - it's being made by Matt Firor and many of the original DAOC RVR programmers
3 - those guys had nothing to do with WAR, having left Mythic prior to that
4 - the system of interrupts, endurance management and style chains described sounds much like DAOC combat with a new polish

1 - So what?  WOW and DAOC both had swords, spells and classes.  Doesn't mean anything.  Just because all games have gone with two factions and we now have a new future game with a third faction, doesn't just make it special.

2 - Doesn't mean anything.  TES doesn't scream PVP to me at all.  I look to game devs for systems they design not over all game schemes.  Plus who trusts MMO game devs anyway?

3 - I don't see why this was brought up.

4 - This could be said about any game on the market now.  A system will skills, skills that can stop other skills, class mechanics that you manage, and chained abilities.  Shrug.

I know you're a fanboy and all, but come the fuck on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 10:52:49 AM
1 - So what?  WOW and DAOC both had swords, spells and classes.  Doesn't mean anything.  Just because all games have gone with two factions and we now have a new future game with a third faction, doesn't just make it special.
You never played DAOC?  Three factions are important.  You saying it is nothing special shows a fundamental lack of understanding.

2 - Doesn't mean anything.  TES doesn't scream PVP to me at all.  I look to game devs for systems they design not over all game schemes.  Plus who trusts MMO game devs anyway?
You asked why people are bringing up comparisons to DAOC.  I think the idea that this game is being made, largely, by ex-DAOC devs is an important part of the reason.

3 - I don't see why this was brought up.
It's called anticipating objections.

4 - This could be said about any game on the market now.  A system will skills, skills that can stop other skills, class mechanics that you manage, and chained abilities.  Shrug.
Again, if you played DAOC, you'd understand the difference.

I know you're a fanboy and all, but come the fuck on.
Ad hominem doesn't make you seem smarter or right.  You asked a specific question, I explained the answer to you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 16, 2012, 10:54:06 AM
It's a bit surreal to see someone besides Bloodworth white-knighting a game that is obviously doomed from the word go, even moreso to see Bloodworth pointing out how bad of an idea this is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 16, 2012, 10:57:11 AM
Blackwulf, shut up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 16, 2012, 10:58:59 AM
Can you stop replying to people that way?  It's fucking annoying. I'm going to ignore the rest of your silliness.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 16, 2012, 11:03:50 AM
Okay, by popular demand, I will take my optimism and F off.  I'll refrain from posting in here, until a lot more info is available, and I'll either come back to:

A: Say, "I told you so."

-or-

B: Say, "You guys were so right, can't believe I am such a sap."

Cheers, and have fun with your grumpy, negative lives, you bunch of losers.

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on May 16, 2012, 11:12:35 AM
 :popcorn:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 16, 2012, 11:22:30 AM
I'm sorry, blackwulf, I couldn't understand you with Matt Firor's cock in your mouth.

Seriously, your entire point seems to be that Matt Firor was involved and their press releases said that every feature they cribbed off every other MMO that has come out is somehow new and miraculous. I'm willing to admit that I could be totally wrong - it's happened before. I thought Shadowbane would be a depressing mess of griefing and shittastic play (I wasn't totally wrong, it was that but that wasn't what killed the game - face-fucking bugs were) but I ended up enjoying the shit out of it until I couldn't take the bugs anymore.

But early days with the information that's been released? It looks like Alganon with a popular IP and without the Good Doctor to save it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 16, 2012, 11:32:19 AM
3 - We are not impressed with the current crop of MMO's and don't mind trying something else
Yeah, see - that's where it all falls apart. From what they've described so far, this ISN'T "something else". It's not an Elder Scrolls game, and it's not "something else". It's a rehash/mashup of DIKU-muds we've already played. Just re-arranging bits and pieces here and there does not "something else" make.

Yes yes. But its Fuchsia now! Of course its all spangly and new you silly person. It's not like they went all rabid and added STRIPES!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 16, 2012, 11:37:36 AM
Okay, by popular demand, I will take my optimism and F off.  I'll refrain from posting in here, until a lot more info is available, and I'll either come back to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 16, 2012, 12:01:16 PM
I still can't find any redeeming value in this conversion from TES style and combat. To Standard fair MMO combat. Regardless of my opinion of it.

Why would you do that? Who are you talking to? Have they played the other TES games?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 01:00:26 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want TES combat in an MMO. It has never been good, Skyrim is the first time it has even achieved "passable".

EDIT: Same for the character building, for that matter.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 16, 2012, 01:28:21 PM
Okay, by popular demand, I will take my optimism and F off.  I'll refrain from posting in here, until a lot more info is available, and I'll either come back to:

Oh no! Not... that guy! He was such a pillar of the community over the years, contributing to so many discussions!

Please rethink this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 16, 2012, 02:19:18 PM
Cheers, and have fun with your grumpy, negative lives, you bunch of losers.

Tell Matty F we said lulz.

Of course, you were that guy with such glorious opinions as "MMO SKILLBAR COMBAT??? FUCK YEAH, BONER ACHIEVED!!!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 16, 2012, 02:23:43 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want TES combat in an MMO. It has never been good, Skyrim is the first time it has even achieved "passable".

EDIT: Same for the character building, for that matter.

Nobody wants TES combat in an MMO because nobody wants a TES MMO except for Zenimax. For the past ten+ years, all anyone's wanted is Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim, but with co-op.

And the combat's fine in TES anyway. It's no Dark Messiah (whose combat was vastly overrated) or Mount & Blade, but it did what it was designed to do just fine.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 16, 2012, 02:41:27 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would want TES combat in an MMO. It has never been good, Skyrim is the first time it has even achieved "passable".

I liked Skyrim's combat. It was certainly more fun and less stale than SWTOR's, for example, which was the last attempt at copying WoW's combat.

That said, we want TES combat because we're talking about a TES MMO. It's a core part of the series and it shouldn't be stripped out just because they're adding more players.

Mass Effect combat has never been amazing (though it's certainly gotten better). I'd still be disappointed if they announced a Mass Effect MMO that ditched the third-person-shooting in favor of tab-target action bar combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 02:43:45 PM
It shouldn't be stripped out because they're adding more players, it should be stripped out because it sucks.

Mass Effect combat (post-ME1) isn't even in the same universe of shitty.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 16, 2012, 02:51:20 PM
Or they could continue to improve it. Would Mass Effect have been better off if after 1 Bioware said "Man, we suck at making shooters, lets just go to back to KOTOR combat"?

They slowly improved it with 2 and 3 and what we have right now with ME3 is much more entertaining than KOTOR's combat. Skyrim's combat is likewise a large improvement over Oblivion/Morrowind. You don't completely scrap the gameplay that has been the foundation of your series just because it's not perfect yet or you're adding more players.

TESO's combat design is an embarrassing cop-out


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 02:55:11 PM
Conversely KOTOR's combat is more entertaining than even Skyrim's, and prior versions of TES combat don't even enter the conversation. The difference? Melee combat.

The only game that's ever come close to making 'action' first person melee combat work, IMO, is Mount & Blade, and frankly the difficulty curve there for non-mounted melee is well beyond what the average player wants to deal with I'd guess. Even there the multiplayer combat is a horrible mess of circle strafing and such.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 16, 2012, 02:59:04 PM
Zenoclash and Condemned are both great examples of first-person melee combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 03:16:45 PM
I'll have to take your word on those, I haven't played either. Amend my previous statement to include 'that I've played' somewhere in it.

Do they have multiplayer?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 16, 2012, 03:17:36 PM
Conversely KOTOR's combat is more entertaining than even Skyrim's

Your opinion may not match the populace on this one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on May 16, 2012, 03:20:04 PM
I found the Fallout 3 combat system passable (and it was even better in FNV... yeah I know, obsidian), so bethesda -can- make an ok combat system if they're forced to.

I also remember a mod for oblivion [deadly reflex?] that added a lot of variety to combat with various acrobatic moves, combos, and the like. I have yet to get more than 2-3 hours into oblivion to have an opinion on that, though  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 03:27:38 PM
The difference, with FO3, is guns. TES games do ranged combat fine. Melee in FO3 is really only made viable by VATS, which wouldn't really be possible in a multiplayer game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 16, 2012, 03:39:25 PM
Do they have multiplayer?

Condemned 2 and Zenoclash both have MP that works pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD3o6gtetDc

Skip to 3:30 for an example of what weapon combat looks like. Condemned 1/2 were both actually pretty great games, and the first to really nail first-person melee combat (imo). A shame we probably won't see any more of them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 16, 2012, 03:59:55 PM
Cheers, and have fun with your grumpy, negative lives, you bunch of losers.

Tell Matty F we said lulz.

Of course, you were that guy with such glorious opinions as "MMO SKILLBAR COMBAT??? FUCK YEAH, BONER ACHIEVED!!!"

Damnit blackwulf, you could have made a more glorious exit, like "and beware, F13'ers: look to your posts, because the internet is dark and full of Firor, Fries, terrors"...Or something :P. Geeze.
------

And here is the Aldmeri Dominion (Altmer, Bosmer, Khajiit) faction profile:

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/16/elder-scrolls-online-faction-profile-aldmeri-dominion.aspx

Quote
“The name says it all. The Aldmeri Dominion wants to dominate the world. They plan on taking over the world. Submit or die,” explains game director Matt Firor. “The Aldmeri Dominion is like, ‘we’re going to kill everyone that isn’t us. You people are going to help us or else.’”

That's HEAVY, dude. Rawr.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 16, 2012, 04:11:05 PM
I somehow hadn't cottoned onto the fact that you can't play an Imperial until now. That makes me go  :oh_i_see:.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 16, 2012, 04:13:59 PM
I somehow hadn't cottoned onto the fact that you can't play an Imperial until now. That makes me go  :oh_i_see:.

Me either  :awesome_for_real:

Man the fail is strong with this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on May 16, 2012, 06:00:48 PM
Quote
“The name says it all. The Aldmeri Dominion wants to dominate the world. They plan on taking over the world. Submit or die,” explains game director Matt Firor. “The Aldmeri Dominion is like, ‘we’re going to kill everyone that isn’t us. You people are going to help us or else.’”

That's HEAVY, dude. Rawr.

Well, see, they're a DOMINION. And they're like, angry. Angry elves who like to dominate.

Fuck. Its a BDSM club run by elves.

I see how they'll sell the game now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 17, 2012, 01:54:00 AM
I somehow hadn't cottoned onto the fact that you can't play an Imperial until now. That makes me go  :oh_i_see:.

I'm still having a hard time getting over the Orc/Redguard/Breton and Dunmer/Nord/Argonian love-ins.  Yes, I get they chose the second era because it's a blank slate, and they can arguably do something completely contradictory to all standing lore in it.  A better solution would have been anything else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 17, 2012, 07:11:16 AM
Quote
“The name says it all. The Aldmeri Dominion wants to dominate the world. They plan on taking over the world. Submit or die,” explains game director Matt Firor. “The Aldmeri Dominion is like, ‘we’re going to kill everyone that isn’t us. You people are going to help us or else.’”

That's HEAVY, dude. Rawr.
Well, see, they're a DOMINION. And they're like, angry. Angry elves who like to dominate.

Fuck. Its a BDSM club run by elves.

I see how they'll sell the game now.
To be fair, in the actual Elder Scrolls lolore the dominion is literally that. They're super-racists that want to grind the rest of the world under their bootheel.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 17, 2012, 07:58:39 AM
Yeah I can really see a bunch of racists letting in the Cat people.  :oh_i_see: Besides, the Kajit wouldn't want to kill you. Whose shit would they steal if you're dead?  :grin:

And I liked oblivion combat. It actually gave some benefits to going unarmoured, in that you could jump around a lot higher which suited my "I'm a frog vit lightning bolts!" combat style and your spells hit harder. In Skyrym, much as I like the game, your armour makes sod all difference to manoeuvrability aside from what perks you want and it makes no difference whatsoever to spellcasting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 17, 2012, 08:27:38 AM
The Kahjit being in the dominion is kinda confusing, yeah.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 17, 2012, 08:45:29 AM
Were I to even consider playing it, the faction set-up would cause all kinds of splits with friends.  (And Khajit-lovers getting stuck with the elves.  Hah!)  As if we didn't have enough problems deciding on a side in two faction systems...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on May 17, 2012, 09:09:51 AM
I would F-ing love a 4-8 player Oblivion.

4 Seems to be the magic number these days though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 17, 2012, 09:53:44 AM
I would F-ing love a 4-8 player Oblivion.

4 Seems to be the magic number these days though.

I like to think of it when people go out to drink or party. Anything over 3-4 people becomes harder to manage out on the town.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 17, 2012, 10:43:58 AM
Were I to even consider playing it, the faction set-up would cause all kinds of splits with friends.  (And Khajit-lovers getting stuck with the elves.  Hah!)  As if we didn't have enough problems deciding on a side in two faction systems...

Yeah. This is the problem with coming into something which has 20 years of NOT picking factions behind it. Every prospective buyer already knows what they're used to when it comes to TES racial dynamics. They have their favorite races to play and it's never, ever mattered beyond storyline purposes. Now? Oh, glad you like Dunmer and your wife likes Argonians. Too bad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 17, 2012, 12:11:38 PM
Well, Dunmer and Argonians are the same faction, but that's even worse -- take two of the most popular races and put them together.  Sprinkle everything else amongst the others.

Dunmer + Argonians + Nord = Two games worth of races whose regions were the focus plus one of the unique beast races.

Khajit + Elves + Other Elves = Other beast race and fucking elves.

Orcs + Humans + Other Humans = Orcs are kind of cool.  Humans?  Yawn.

Now if players can make whatever and choose to join one of these factions that are dominated by NPCs of the races, that might mitigate it a little.  But only a little.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on May 17, 2012, 03:01:27 PM
A better solution would have been anything else.
Now if players can make whatever and choose to join one of these factions that are dominated by NPCs of the races, that might mitigate it a little.  But only a little.

You should show up and ask for some fucker's job.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 17, 2012, 03:36:47 PM
The Kahjit being in the dominion is kinda confusing, yeah.

I'd argue it depends on which version of the Khajiit they're using.  In the original Arena, they were basically identical to wood elves (there were "legends" that they were descended from desert cats, but otherwise humanoid), it wasn't until Morrowind that they went full furry.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 17, 2012, 11:40:21 PM
The "full furry" Khajiit are what probably 80% or more of TES players are familiar with, so it's probably a pretty safe bet that's what they'll go with. I would be stunned if they even acknowledge the various Khajiit breeds they came up with to explain why Khajiit are suddenly actual cat-people with barbed penises.

Then again, this game throws out pretty much everything else TES players would find familiar, so who the hell knows.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 18, 2012, 04:19:10 PM
The Ebonheart Pact (Dunmer, Nord, Argonian) :

http://www.gameinformer.com/games/the_elder_scrolls_online/b/pc/archive/2012/05/18/elder-scrolls-online-faction-profile-ebonheart-pact.aspx

Quote
“About 50 years prior to the game, an Akaviri invasion came in and basically tried to take over,” says creative director Paul Sage. “What happens now is that the Dunmer and the Nords have formed an alliance because the attack was so bad that they realized they were weak to the Imperial rise. So they form an alliance of convenience with the Argonians. They’re surrounded by all these tides of opposing forces. They feel really threatened, so the Ebonheart’s entire purpose is to band together and make sure they’re no longer in danger.”


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 19, 2012, 05:50:55 AM
Game Informer posted another interview with Matt Firor; they talk a bit more about what we can expect in ESO in terms of gameplay: it's now Firor's turn to tell what exactly MMOs have done wrong in the last 10 years or so, and as usual, he has a SOLUTION.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/17/what-makes-the-elder-scrolls-online-a-modern-mmo.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tyrnan on May 19, 2012, 06:38:44 AM
So, raiding aside, the whole interview pretty much boils down to "I read the ArenaNet manifesto and went fuck yeah!" or am I missing something?

Full rewards for helping out other players? Check. Exploration driven, hubless questing? Check. Solo, instanced questing for the major story quests? Check.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 19, 2012, 09:57:53 AM
Yeah none of that sounds great. Many v. Many raids? PvE with instancing to keep it feeling like you're hero? That's not innovative, Matt. You are the guy walking into a brainstorm session talking about this great new idea of allowing users to send messages to each other via their phones!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 19, 2012, 01:43:57 PM
The problem with that entire interview is the same problem with the entire swath of information that's being put out there. It's all spoken in the language of MMO. The game design is constrained by the legacy problems MMO's have - it can't be innovative at all, because all it's doing is taking what's been done before and iterating on it. The language is restrictive and can't conceive of something outside the normal range of MMO concepts.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on May 19, 2012, 03:49:53 PM
Skyrim was innovative (in ways) and it's highly polished.  How can they have such a difference in offerings?  It's a ridiculous comparison, but reading all this it feels like holding an iPhone4 to a Newton.  Releasing something as beautiful and great as Skyrim from the same company that's promising DAoC2 is just bizarre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 19, 2012, 04:36:59 PM
Same publisher, not same studio.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 19, 2012, 09:27:32 PM
Man I keep hoping something good will come up, something promising.

Different developer sure, but nobody seems to be managing the ES brand here. You can do whatever you want with a brand if you own it of course. And it's not like the ES series is a paragon of game mechanic consistency and narrative. Shit, I couldn't even tell you what the damned scrolls were.

But brand equity requires some consistency, some foundation upon which others look and say "yep, that's an ES game". And it needs to be good. Nothing kills a brand better than a bad experience.

And here, worse for them, the only people who are even aware of an ESO are likely fairly knowledgable about both MMO and RPG.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dark_MadMax on May 19, 2012, 10:09:38 PM
To me TES was always about solo play. I mean every game in series is single character in a huge sandbox world. No parties ,companions ,etc  (well skyrim has optional companions , but that doesnt count). Now MMOs?- MMOS is all about other people. And well you know what hell is?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 20, 2012, 01:02:19 PM
Same publisher, not same studio.

Which will matter exactly fuckall to the mouth-breathers out there, which is almost all of them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on May 20, 2012, 01:12:24 PM
Same publisher, not same studio.

Which will matter exactly fuckall to the mouth-breathers out there, which is almost all of them.

Precisely. Anything bad that comes out of ESO will reflect badly on Bethsoft and not Zenimax Online Studios.

I mean look how many people still, years later, think Bethsoft developed New Vegas. It's pretty staggering.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 20, 2012, 09:27:18 PM
And the same Bioware developed DA2, ME3 and SWTOR  :oh_i_see:

Just another brand damaged is all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 21, 2012, 12:57:07 AM
To me TES was always about solo play. I mean every game in series is single character in a huge sandbox world. No parties ,companions ,etc  (well skyrim has optional companions , but that doesnt count). Now MMOs?- MMOS is all about other people. And well you know what hell is?


Yeah.  I mean, I could see a co-op version being fun, but it's the sandbox that makes TES games fun.  I like being able to murder a whole village on a whim and see permanent consequences.  I like being stupidly overpowered in some ways, and underpowered in others.  I like the world feeling natural, not just a series of quest hubs and respawning bullshit.  I like being able to change my "alignment" on the fly.  I like being able to wander the wilderness knowing that I am not going to run across a bunch of dickheads.  I like gear not being terribly important, but being fun to collect and create nonetheless.  I like the idea of being able to mod the game, even if I only use a few of them.

In short, everything that makes Skyrim fun will not be in this game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 21, 2012, 02:29:30 AM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2 and be done with it, it should be more than enough of a brand name at this point to get publicity all on its own, and (I assume) not starting out at such a negative level as they have when starting out with ES.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 21, 2012, 10:38:02 AM
Did DAOC have the range of Races that TES has. I mean you in TES have Viking Humans, Roman humans, Black Humans, British humans, Spanish Humans, Orcs, Light & Dark and Green Elves, Kilrathi and Gorns.

And you have a pretty decent history to ignore.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 21, 2012, 01:13:45 PM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2 and be done with it, it should be more than enough of a brand name at this point to get publicity all on its own, and (I assume) not starting out at such a negative level as they have when starting out with ES.

Because they don't own the rights to DAOC?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 21, 2012, 01:16:19 PM
Did DAOC have the range of Races that TES has. I mean you in TES have Viking Humans, Roman humans, Black Humans, British humans, Spanish Humans, Orcs, Light & Dark and Green Elves, Kilrathi and Gorns.

And you have a pretty decent history to ignore.

So, it's just Humans, Orcs, Elves, Kilrathi and Gorns?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 21, 2012, 01:18:28 PM
DAOC started with 12 races (so 3 more than TES:O since you can't play Imperial) - only 6 of them were human, assuming you count Avalonians - and added several more in later expansions.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on May 21, 2012, 04:07:55 PM
Saracen
Highlanders
Britons
Avalonians


Norse
Troll
Dwarf
Kobold


Celt
Firbolg
Elf
Lurikeen


At release if I remember it all right.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on May 21, 2012, 06:20:02 PM
Sounds like they would have been better off going for DAOC if they wanted variety of races. But they could keep down costs of modling with using TES (a dark Elf is a darker High elf) maybe?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 21, 2012, 06:20:45 PM
Again, they don't own DAOC.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 21, 2012, 06:29:00 PM
That hasn't stopped everyone trying to copy WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on May 21, 2012, 07:13:00 PM
I might actually give a shit if it was DaoC 2 though. The setting is pretty neat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 22, 2012, 12:10:37 AM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2

Because people are a lot more interested in a TES game and DAoC is an almost-forgotten title almost everywhere but here?  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on May 22, 2012, 07:24:28 AM
Because they don't own the rights to DAOC?
Well, what I meant was why don't they just license the name, but I've no idea how much that'd cost. And there's also this to contend with:

Because people are a lot more interested in a TES game and DAoC is an almost-forgotten title almost everywhere but here?  :why_so_serious:

However, I can't help but think that going for TES for the game they're outlining is a huge mistake which will backfire and probably be more costly over the long run than it would be to either not do this, or use another IP they license or think up themselves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on May 22, 2012, 10:53:11 AM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2

Because people are a lot more interested in a TES game and DAoC is an almost-forgotten title almost everywhere but here?  :why_so_serious:

Seriously, the amount of people who have intense, fond memories of DAoC and would rabidly await a sequel can fit in a small car park.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on May 22, 2012, 02:40:38 PM
I really don't see why they can't just call it DAoC2

Because people are a lot more interested in a TES game and DAoC is an almost-forgotten title almost everywhere but here?  :why_so_serious:

Seriously, the amount of people who have intense, fond memories of DAoC and would rabidly await a sequel can fit in a small car park.

FIFY.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 22, 2012, 04:02:33 PM
Because they don't own the rights to DAOC?
Well, what I meant was why don't they just license the name, but I've no idea how much that'd cost.

It's owned by EA, a rival MMO maker. It would cost everything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on May 22, 2012, 05:16:06 PM
"Creating the story for the Elder Scrolls Online" (12m video):

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/21/creating-the-story-for-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 22, 2012, 10:38:14 PM
Seriously, the amount of people who have intense, fond memories of DAoC and would rabidly await a sequel can fit in a small car park.

FIFY.
:awesome_for_real:

DAoC has about as much reach as UO. Neither brand means jack beyond a core so dedicated they'll need to be physically unplugged from the world once they fall below the "keep the lights on" budget range.

Timing is part of brand building. But iterating on that brand in a consistent way to establish its tenets and "no go" areas is even more important. Both DAoC and UO haven't had much done with their brands. But honestly, I can almost accept that more than label slapping.

Like this title seems to be doing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 23, 2012, 05:13:49 PM
A new interview at Game Informer about quest system and stuff.  People interested in whether this game has any "TESness" might find it interesting:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/23/exploring-quests-in-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Dark_MadMax on May 24, 2012, 08:47:19 AM
All in all I am not holding any hopes, if it turns out a great game -then I ll play, if its another SWTOR-like 2monther I maybe will play too. for 2 month.   GW2 and Archeage is what I plan for MMO as MMO  for me is PvP and I dont  really care about the world, quests or epic mob raids


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 25, 2012, 08:10:00 AM
More details about how skill progression works.  Seems like they are actually more like TES than initially thought.

(also couple mroe screens)

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/05/25/how-combat-works-in-the-elder-scrolls-online/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on May 25, 2012, 08:27:29 AM
6 skills and deck building.

So it's The Elder Scrolls in Guild Wars/Secret World sauce?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2012, 10:08:09 AM
Excellent! I love new pieces on the combat. Let's dig in.

"Gameplay designer Nick Konkle talked me through how they’ve tried to apply the principles of the Elder Scrolls games into an MMORPG. Your skill bar in The Elder Scrolls Online has six slots..."

Ah yes, exactly like Skyrim. How fondly I remember my six slot skillbar. Good times!

“So I might just pick Summon Frost Atronach. And a Frost Atronach’s going to fall out of the sky and smash anyone he lands on, and then hang around and start beating on people. Yeah, that totally supports by rangery bow metaphor from earlier. That’s the character I wanted to play."

PvP designer Brian Wheeler interjects. “People also scream ‘Oh my god that is awesome’ when a Frost Atronach comes down.”

Nick: “That actually does happen."


It so totally happens you guys. I mean, like, for realz people screaming and shit! I know you've never summoned shit before in an MMOG. I have wood as we speak.

“The key is that those abilities, like the weapon, I can start with and use effectively initially, but in order to master I must play with over a long period of time. Which is very much like the Elder Scrolls games, and is our own way of interpreting that."

So what we've done here is taken WoW's weapon skillup system, except we've deleted the fumbling, bumbling penalties.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 25, 2012, 11:27:32 AM
You left out that WoW got rid of the skill-ups because it didn't add anything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 25, 2012, 01:04:30 PM
I figured it was implied  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on May 25, 2012, 01:35:40 PM
Well, ok, but it's actually not that bad when you consider you're not (I don't think?) hamstrung into a single class that'll only ever use one or two types of weapons forever and ever. At least that's something from TES series. Of course, it's bootstrapped to the WoW style and layered in D3 build-your-deck class-based ability sauce. But at least it's different.

Until they hit their realworld testing phase and realize all the balance tables are unfixably borked, and start limiting things to class only  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 25, 2012, 03:45:56 PM
TESO not using Hero Engine.

 http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/25/why-the-elder-scrolls-online-isn-39-t-using-heroengine.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 25, 2012, 04:34:34 PM
Some of the newer articles actually make me warm up about the game.  Skill system is like GW2, which I like.  It really depends on how combat feels.  Is it WOW or is it GW2?

Who ever ok'd that original article should get yelled at.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on May 25, 2012, 05:21:52 PM
TESO not using Hero Engine.

 http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/25/why-the-elder-scrolls-online-isn-39-t-using-heroengine.aspx

I don't actually believe this. Much more likely the current engine is a frankenstein creation just like SWTOR's was with bits and pieces of Heroengine left over. That said, most of the hate piled on Heroengine is misplaced.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 29, 2012, 01:10:28 AM
For me, it isn't hate of the Hero Engine itself.  That engine is probably just fine for standard vanilla MMO XYZ (which this is going to turn into).  It's more because it means you can wave goodbye to the amazing, gorgeous and wonderful worlds that TES has been known for in recent years.  Take that away, and you remove one of the biggest reasons people play these games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 29, 2012, 02:34:45 AM
I think you are vastly overestimating the impact that the engine has on the actual look of a game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 29, 2012, 03:28:40 AM
... except for the Unreal Engine, which makes things look slightly wet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 29, 2012, 03:42:21 AM
I think you are vastly overestimating the impact that the engine has on the actual look of a game.

Probably.  And yet, I'm sure it won't look like I would want it to look.  Whatever. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 29, 2012, 02:35:40 PM
Well of course it won't, you're an f13 poster and it is an MMO.  :-P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 29, 2012, 05:13:14 PM
Two more interviews up - specifically about combat and tactics.

Warning - they are a little long.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/05/29/the-tactical-combat-of-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 29, 2012, 09:23:08 PM
They are way too long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 30, 2012, 06:45:52 AM
They are way too long.

Nice videos, Blackwulf.  I'm excited for TES:O.  It definitely is sounding more and more like a spiritual successor to DAoC.

Unfortunately, in Draegan's case, you just can't fix stupid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on May 30, 2012, 07:10:48 AM
Well of course it won't, you're an f13 poster and it is an MMO.  :-P

I guess what I mean is that, for me, much of what makes a game like Skyrim standout is the fantastic living world they have crafted, and the graphical engine pushing it forward.  I suspect that whatever this thing turns out to be will not check those boxes at all.  Not to mention the sandboxiness, which definitely will not be there.  The lore in TES games is the thing I actually care least about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Spiff on May 30, 2012, 08:05:06 AM
Oink

First post and already insulting a regular, classy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 30, 2012, 08:20:58 AM
Oink

First post and already insulting a regular, classy.

(http://newnation.sg/wp-content/uploads/badass-meme.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on May 30, 2012, 08:32:50 AM
So which banned poster under a new name are you?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 30, 2012, 08:41:50 AM
So which banned poster under a new name are you?

I'm brand new, but have been reading for awhile.  Just thought it was terrible to see all the whining and pessimism about a potentially awesome game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xanthippe on May 30, 2012, 08:54:25 AM
I'm brand new, but have been reading for awhile.  Just thought it was terrible to see all the whining and pessimism about a potentially awesome game.

 :awesome_for_real:

Welcome to F13.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 30, 2012, 09:26:40 AM
I watched both videos. Here are the key points they made.

-Smaller number of attacks they want to be "cool and powerful" as well as creating ground effect and attack combo synergies, they group is very "anti-rotation" and wants situational combat to be the norm
-AI will work together to chain attacks using direct synergies and tactic
-Visual indicators will play up the usage of skills instead of tons of numbers and crap
-Blocking is based off of stamina, parrying shots, breaking roots, and bashes are based on this
-It's not just win/lose, the finesse system is in place where you can get rewarded for playing well (sorta like a baked in hidden combo system).
-They really tried to par down the UI, they wanted to get rid of caster bars for example and replace them with visual cues. "We don't want you to play a UI game, we want you to react to the gaming world."
-Location based effects are a centerpiece of the game.
-CC can be broken by stamina but since it's tied to defense it has to be strategic, passive abilities then keep you from getting CC'd again for 3s across all characters. People get caught in stunlocks because they used all stamina up.
-Weapons will adjust your abilities automatically to have a light attack and heavy attack, with different results, but you have the option to change on the fly between ranged/melee.
-Having fewer abilites but more counters to things with a finite pool of resources creates a direct tactical scenario beyond just rock-paper-scissors
-The idea they are tossing around is that in dungeons, mobs will change tactics based on your group composition. It won't just be pull, cc, etc. One example, is that there will be alarms and send in guys in different waves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 30, 2012, 09:32:43 AM
From what I'm hearing I glean a few things from their approach:

1 - They say they want to get "beyond the numbers" with skills but their entire system is based on numbers. Geeks will break this. They ALWAYS do.
2 - The AI sounds like they are gunning for a form of the Faction Champions fight in WoW. All the time.
3 - There will be a metric fuckton of shit on the ground. From the way they tell it, you run into ground effects to open new combo skills. But mobs also do this.
4 - They really want you to make tactical decisions instead of standard mob responses. That's entirely based on how good their AI will be.
5 - The UI is going to be simple. They made no quotes about whether it would be moddable. That should scare the fuck out of anyone who has dealt with a TES UI.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 30, 2012, 10:54:50 AM
They are way too long.

Nice videos, Blackwulf.  I'm excited for TES:O.  It definitely is sounding more and more like a spiritual successor to DAoC.

Unfortunately, in Draegan's case, you just can't fix stupid.

Oh lord.

What they should of done was exactly what Paelos did.  Transcribe some of the juicer bits, and then leave up the full video interview.  It's better for traffic anyway.  Let's people cut and paste your website's link and text.  It builds traffic.

This is a new game, and if this is their only press they are doing right now, they are better served by parsing data better.  Unfortunely gameinformer was too lazy to present their interviews in a decent way.

Most people don't have time to listen to a poorly conducted interview that is over 15 minutes long.  (Devs love talking about their game, especially for the first time and they aren't bored by the press/convention circuit yet.  You need to attempt to steer the conversation to what people want to hear.  Game mechanics, setting, and other details.)  What they should of done was a series of dev blogs exactly like Arenanet did early on.  Anet did it masterfully.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 30, 2012, 12:39:02 PM
The problem I had with that interview was they dragged the one hot chick they've hired to do Mob creation up there (because she's hot), and they talk about how awesome and high-fiving the game is while they are doing the interview. At no point do they show gameplay, even though it's under testing. They just TELL you about the systems in a round table. It's useless to describe something when I know for a fact you have people testing it. They talk about it during the interview about what happened during their testing. Why don't you SHOW us?

Oh I know, because most of this shit is actually pie-in-the-sky stuff right now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 30, 2012, 01:38:00 PM
I'm brand new, but have been reading for awhile.  Just thought it was terrible to see all the whining and pessimism about a potentially awesome game.

The only thing awesome about this game is the Michael Bay style explosion we will see at the inevitable train wreck.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on May 30, 2012, 03:08:31 PM
I watched both videos. Here are the key points they made.
[snip]

Ah, thanks for that.  

I dunno, this is turning into a bit of a head scratcher for me.  Stuff like small numbers of attacks and being less about skill rotation sound good to me.  Stuff like being "less about the numbers" and dungeon content changing depending on what classes you bring sounds like they don't know their audience.

I'm not sure what to make of the idea that locational effects are supposed to be important.  Is this not still a tab targeting based game?  Because landing AoE is always a bigger pain in the ass in those games, and the main benefit for going tab targeting (frees the mouse to access the skillbar) seems to be limited if they're reducing the number of available abilities.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 30, 2012, 05:04:05 PM
What they really seem to be talking about is this kind of combat:

Melee advance towards targets. Ranged first at the advancing melee. Melee decide to use block to continue the advance, which drains stamina. Healer for melee tosses healing crap on ground. Mage for melee tosses fire crap on ground. Melee moves into said ground effects which procs new skills like FIRE ATTACK and REGEN STRIKE or something.

Supposedly the monsters will counter you by trying to CC your advance, which you can break with stamina. However, you would then lose a lot of your stamina to continue blocking for that fight, so you would have to close quickly. Also, warriors that are out of stamina can switch weapons on the fly to ranged, but they wouldn't be nearly as effective. Likewise for ranged who find themselves in close combat.

They talk a lot about synergies and tactics, but it depends on two things: 1 - The enemy AI, and 2 - Whether or not most of this makes it beyond testing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 30, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Seems like Zenimax or Anet stole ideas from each other.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 30, 2012, 08:20:59 PM
They talk a lot about synergies and tactics, but it depends on two things: 1 - The enemy AI, and 2 - Whether or not most of this makes it beyond testing.

Also critical is how players react (if at all) to these proposed systems. I've seen a lot of devs talk about the tactics and synergies in their game, then the players come through screaming, "POUR ON THE DAMAGE! DPS IS THE ONLY STAT THAT COUNTS!".

Skyrim had lots of tactics I could use; it was often just easier to sneak attack arrow for a one-shot kill every mob in a dungeon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 30, 2012, 11:01:03 PM
That describes every game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on May 31, 2012, 07:28:51 AM
Skyrim pretty much rules out finesse on the highest difficulty. You either make a nearly indestructible tank shrouded in elemental resists with the armor cap, or you make a duel-wielder and use the elemental fury shout to literally hit stuff 30 times in the space of 2-3 seconds.

I went with the former, my cousin made the latter. When he runs into an ancient dragon, if he gets breathed on he near instantly dies, but the instant that thing lands? BZZZZZZZZZZZT, dead, in 4-5 seconds.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 31, 2012, 09:51:56 AM

The only thing awesome about this game is the Michael Bay style explosion we will see at the inevitable train wreck.

Can you please share your crystal ball with me?  I have some unanswered questions of my own!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 31, 2012, 09:58:06 AM
The reason the game is a probably train-wreck is they aren't really innovating combat. They are slapping a new coat of paint on the old rules.

The first thing players will bitch about will be the lack of cast bars. The idea that players want visual effects to dictate action only works when you control the action from a single focal point of your screen. When action is controlled via an action bar, instead of mouse clicking, you are putting those two methods at odds. You eye must be drawn both to the actions and to the activity on the screen. This creates a schism in the playerbase, because some people can handle that transition and some can't. See: Every single "don't stand in the fire" fail in history.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 31, 2012, 10:43:58 AM
I think they're going to discover that the hardcore geeks want those numbers. I predict early whining in beta will center on cast bars as well as the lack of numbers and/or a combat log. Also, they'll want the gear score on their armor so they can begin their number crunching.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on May 31, 2012, 10:52:33 AM
Thing is, I can't really blame them anymore. I used to believe that hiding things the numbers from people was better. SWTOR showed me that it doesn't matter when the designers don't even know how the game is supposed to work.

You can't pretend that it's not about numbers when the entire game is based on them. In a toolbar game, where skill is reduced to simple reactions, trying to convince me that it's not about numbers and not about rotations is frankly silly. I can make the argument it's very much NOT about the numbers in Skyrim, even though the game has a large portion of them, because the combat is so radically different.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 31, 2012, 01:24:00 PM
Can you please share your crystal ball with me?  I have some unanswered questions of my own!

No crystal ball involved. I have the psychic ability to see through bullshit and hype.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on May 31, 2012, 01:44:47 PM
Can you please share your crystal ball with me?  I have some unanswered questions of my own!

No crystal ball involved. I have the psychic ability to see through bullshit and hype.

Didn't keep you from joining Bob.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on May 31, 2012, 01:59:09 PM
Didn't keep you from joining Bob.

I joined as part of a merger. I didn't like the idea, and didn't stay very long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on May 31, 2012, 03:06:21 PM
Didn't you buy Darkfall and other such wondrous games? :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 31, 2012, 03:38:04 PM
Darkfall had some promise. Just way too much to fix for a little dev studio.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Capitalist Swine on May 31, 2012, 05:19:40 PM
The reason the game is a probably train-wreck is they aren't really innovating combat. They are slapping a new coat of paint on the old rules.

The first thing players will bitch about will be the lack of cast bars. The idea that players want visual effects to dictate action only works when you control the action from a single focal point of your screen. When action is controlled via an action bar, instead of mouse clicking, you are putting those two methods at odds. You eye must be drawn both to the actions and to the activity on the screen. This creates a schism in the playerbase, because some people can handle that transition and some can't. See: Every single "don't stand in the fire" fail in history.

I think the only players that will bitch will be those from WoW.  In fact, I hope they bitch, moan, and never play TES:O, because they're the sort of trash I don't want to share my time, energy, and game play with.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 31, 2012, 05:57:43 PM
 :uhrr:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on May 31, 2012, 06:10:24 PM
Oh, you're one of those fuckwits.

Also WAP, you're not allowed to  :uhrr: on the same page you wrote:

Darkfall had some promise.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: WayAbvPar on May 31, 2012, 06:22:22 PM
It did. Sandbox-y world, skill-based advancement, useful crafting, open PvP, ownership of cities, etc. It was just crippled by its reputation as a hardcore PvP game and the facemeltingly long and arduous grind to usefulness. I would absolutely play a sequel (or Darkfall 2010*, which is supposed to be a complete overhaul and is, as you might infer from the name, over 2 years late).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on May 31, 2012, 07:49:05 PM
I think the only players that will bitch will be those from WoW.  In fact, I hope they bitch, moan, and never play TES:O, because they're the sort of trash I don't want to share my time, energy, and game play with.
And fucktards like you that despise the only success in the entire industry are the sort I don't want to share my time, energy, and forums with.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on May 31, 2012, 08:34:14 PM
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/podcasts/archive/2012/05/31/special-edition-podcast-the-elder-scrolls-online.aspx

Podcast with Firor and Sage - answering questions from community.  Some interesting stuff, but a lot of repeat info if you have been paying attention up to now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on May 31, 2012, 09:33:30 PM
I think they're going to discover that the hardcore geeks want those numbers. I predict early whining in beta will center on cast bars as well as the lack of numbers and/or a combat log. Also, they'll want the gear score on their armor so they can begin their number crunching.

Broken record that I am on the title, but CoH tried for a long time to hide the numbers. Players bitched incessantly, reverse engineered the numbers, made assumptions about how things worked and generally unhid the numbers as much as they could.

They also uncovered systems that weren't working correctly that can only be seen when you understand how the numbers should work.

Plus if you don't show the numbers, then you have to use placeholders to describe what it is doing, like "weak" hold or "superior" damage. And then work out if those are referencing in absolute (i.e. superior damage is the best type of damage across all classes / archetypes) or relative (i.e. the superior damage of a Controller is less than the High damage of a Blaster) terms.

On the other hand, CoH unhid the numbers at some point, the math nerds cheered, business continued as usual. So a lot of work to unhide them for very little pay off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on May 31, 2012, 10:19:19 PM
Hiding the numbers on powers is also something that DAOC did and Firor's fingerprints are on that. It was a pretty dumb system, that was for example largely responsible for the fact that it took forever for the doublefrost math bug to be discovered.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 01, 2012, 02:06:43 AM
Yea... "bug".  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 01, 2012, 08:19:35 AM
I think the only players that will bitch will be those from WoW.  In fact, I hope they bitch, moan, and never play TES:O, because they're the sort of trash I don't want to share my time, energy, and game play with.

While I do have an open disdain for a large portion of the WoW community, the SWTOR community was no better. Neither was the WAR community.

Because you have a toolbar based MMO that revolves around gearing and levels, just like all the other ones I listed, you won't get a magical united community. You will get the same shit you always get.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on June 01, 2012, 08:23:36 AM
Because you have a toolbar based MMO that revolves around gearing and levels, just like all the other ones I listed, you won't get a magical united community. You will get the same shit you always get.
You mean this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtvIYRrgZ04


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 01, 2012, 08:31:29 AM
They also uncovered systems that weren't working correctly that can only be seen when you understand how the numbers should work.
There are a lot of math geeks out there.  They're bound to reverse engineer things if they're invested enough.  (See my ever-popular example of SWG's incorrect tissue coefficients.)

I do like how CoH chose to do their numbers.  It's there if you want to dig into it, but it's not in-your-face.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 01, 2012, 08:39:45 AM
Jesus Christ: http://imgur.com/a/CjsrU Yes please, lets paint an apartment building with a TESO advertisement... by hand.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 01, 2012, 10:11:42 AM
Jesus Christ: http://imgur.com/a/CjsrU Yes please, lets paint an apartment building with a TESO advertisement... by hand.

Yeah, I don't think they are fucking around...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 01, 2012, 10:24:11 AM
WTF? Why would you do that, number 1? Number 2, did I miss a memo that this is releasing next month or something? Because if it's not, that's WAY TOO EARLY to be MarketJizzing all over the side of a building.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 01, 2012, 10:33:18 AM
My guess is that it's so abnormal they are hoping it will make National news?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on June 01, 2012, 11:34:21 AM
WTF? Why would you do that, number 1? Number 2, did I miss a memo that this is releasing next month or something? Because if it's not, that's WAY TOO EARLY to be MarketJizzing all over the side of a building.

I haven't followed it closely, is there some government funding going into development? This reminds me of something 38 Studios would have done, where they were forced to hire too quickly in order to meet government targets (because the government wants you to be a jerb creator) as a condition of their loans, which in turn means a fully staffed marketing department before you actually need one, which in turn leads to shit like this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on June 01, 2012, 11:59:19 AM
Lookit that NOSE.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 01, 2012, 12:29:02 PM
I can't.  She also has Prince Charles ears.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 01, 2012, 12:40:04 PM
The game is slated for 2013.  Seems a bit far off.  Who knows though, could be part of a decent marketing campaign regardless of the game's perception.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Abelian75 on June 01, 2012, 02:22:08 PM
That elf chick is funny.  Elves in TES are ugly as hell, imho, and it's like they tried to make a more "normal" elf chick, but left a liiiiitle hint of the ol' ugly.  For, uh, brand recognition.  Or something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 01, 2012, 03:49:42 PM
Fucking elves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on June 01, 2012, 04:14:31 PM
Fucking elves.
But enough about Goldshire.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on June 01, 2012, 04:34:33 PM
Seems like Zenimax or Anet stole ideas from each other.
They're similar with all that weapon swapping and skill set business. Much like WoW clones, I'm just wondering "if we have A already (and A does it well enough), and B doesn't add much, what's the point of B?" What I'm seeing here are... a few less weapon-dependent skills, more uses of your stamina bar, and a replacement of "no trinity" with "all pve content is solo-able".
So which banned poster under a new name are you?

I'm brand new, but have been reading for awhile.  Just thought it was terrible to see all the whining and pessimism about a potentially awesome game.
You joined to defend a videogame against mean words? Do you have some connection to it or do you just overly empathize with commercial products (you seem like a tool either way)?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on June 01, 2012, 05:10:59 PM
Jesus Christ: http://imgur.com/a/CjsrU Yes please, lets paint an apartment building with a TESO advertisement... by hand.


Christ.....MOAR MONEY DOWN THE DRAIN, YEAAAAAAH like that baby.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on June 01, 2012, 05:15:16 PM
what a waste of money


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 01, 2012, 05:17:35 PM
WTF? Why would you do that, number 1? Number 2, did I miss a memo that this is releasing next month or something? Because if it's not, that's WAY TOO EARLY to be MarketJizzing all over the side of a building.

I haven't followed it closely, is there some government funding going into development? This reminds me of something 38 Studios would have done, where they were forced to hire too quickly in order to meet government targets (because the government wants you to be a jerb creator) as a condition of their loans, which in turn means a fully staffed marketing department before you actually need one, which in turn leads to shit like this.

Pretty sure they don't have any public money to burn through.  According to their FAQ (http://www.zenimaxonline.com/faq.html) they've had a pretty huge budget from day one.  Personally, I think this big E3 display is a signal that to them 2013 might mean something like spring 2013, not Christmas.  If you think about it, they opened a customer support center in Ireland over a year ago (http://www.zenimaxonline.com/news_ireland_facility.html) - I think they are closer to actually firing this thing up than they are letting on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 02, 2012, 03:40:46 PM

Jesus Christ: http://imgur.com/a/CjsrU Yes please, lets paint an apartment building with a TESO advertisement... by hand.


I bet that group of artists are just fine with it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on June 03, 2012, 04:51:35 AM
I love that out of all the mediocre-to-terrible franchise cash-in MMOs over the years, it's this one that's made the groupthink go "The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!". SWTOR being a five-years-out-of-date WoW clone with a ridiculous budget? Fine. AoC being a glorified twenty level demo with "this space to let" filling in for the rest of the game? Still had its defenders. WAR being a complete trainwreck? It's all good. All the other tie-ins going free to play within a year or two? They'll make more money that way.

But someone tries to turn TES into an MMO and it's suddenly :mob: time. It's funny.  :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on June 03, 2012, 05:37:51 AM
It's not "groupthink." It's the fact that it appears to everyone to be a terrible idea for a number of extremely obvious reasons, not the least of which is that it's an Elder Scrolls branded game that has nothing to do with what makes Elder Scrolls good.

A Star Wars MMO at least ostensibly has something that appeals to Star Wars fans. The fact that this sounds terrible is not the problem, I'm not even sure if it sounds terrible. The problem is the same problem as "Quake 4 - Now a Facebook farming sim!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 03, 2012, 07:20:47 AM
I love that out of all the mediocre-to-terrible franchise cash-in MMOs over the years, it's this one that's made the groupthink go "The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!". SWTOR being a five-years-out-of-date WoW clone with a ridiculous budget? Fine. AoC being a glorified twenty level demo with "this space to let" filling in for the rest of the game? Still had its defenders. WAR being a complete trainwreck? It's all good. All the other tie-ins going free to play within a year or two? They'll make more money that way.

But someone tries to turn TES into an MMO and it's suddenly :mob: time. It's funny.  :-)
For me at least, SWTOR was just KOTOR 3 that happened to have a monthly fee. The game was good enough for me in that regard; I never had any intention of actually playing it like an MMO.

On the other hand, there was a lot of rage around here over WAR once it went live so I'm not sure what your point is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on June 03, 2012, 07:46:37 AM
"After it went live" would be more accurate, iirc. I seem to remember that for the first month or two for WAR the standard line was variations on a theme of "It's a more PvP-heavy WoW and it's good if you want that". I've not seen a pre-emptive backlash like this for a new MMO since, what, Vanguard?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on June 03, 2012, 10:21:01 AM
"After it went live" would be more accurate, iirc. I seem to remember that for the first month or two for WAR the standard line was variations on a theme of "It's a more PvP-heavy WoW and it's good if you want that". I've not seen a pre-emptive backlash like this for a new MMO since, what, Vanguard?

It is the Elder Scrolls name.  If this was named literally ANYTHING else, the thread would have 25 replies and would've dropped off the front page.  This thread is a testament to the fact that a bunch of people around here feel pretty strongly about TES setting/IP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 03, 2012, 01:50:41 PM
You would see a similar reaction if they made a Halo MMO with toolbar combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on June 03, 2012, 11:42:02 PM
You would see a similar reaction if they made a Halo MMO with toolbar combat.

(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/09/hallo-mmo-2.jpg)

That's exactly what Microsoft had been making years ago. Fortunately they had the sense to cancel it where Bethesda (as the publisher) doesn't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on June 04, 2012, 12:33:26 PM
I love that out of all the mediocre-to-terrible franchise cash-in MMOs over the years, it's this one that's made the groupthink go "The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!". SWTOR being a five-years-out-of-date WoW clone with a ridiculous budget? Fine. AoC being a glorified twenty level demo with "this space to let" filling in for the rest of the game? Still had its defenders. WAR being a complete trainwreck? It's all good. All the other tie-ins going free to play within a year or two? They'll make more money that way.

But someone tries to turn TES into an MMO and it's suddenly :mob: time. It's funny.  :-)

All of the games you named (well, the first two) were flawed more in execution than concept. This game, by contrast, is falling down from the very basic foundational designs they've laid out.

Also where are these WAR fanboys I missed? I thought that game was positively eviscerated here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 04, 2012, 02:07:35 PM
Actually we all (most of us anyway) rather liked it until we hit level 12. After that, yes, positively eviscerated is exactly true.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Tannhauser on June 04, 2012, 04:41:09 PM
God, I loved WAR from 1-11.  I mean hard to remember any negatives at that point.  Good newbie zones, fun PQ's, appealing quests and of course the first PVP map.  But ho boy when you out-level Nordenwatch the fun made a nosedive.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 04, 2012, 04:41:49 PM
"After it went live" would be more accurate, iirc. I seem to remember that for the first month or two for WAR the standard line was variations on a theme of "It's a more PvP-heavy WoW and it's good if you want that". I've not seen a pre-emptive backlash like this for a new MMO since, what, Vanguard?
WAR people got upset when they got out of Tier 1 and poor design decisions for the later game materialized.  Same with AoC.  The early game was good for both.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out the good bits in an otherwise shit game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 04, 2012, 05:31:00 PM
God, I loved WAR from 1-11.  I mean hard to remember any negatives at that point. 

Combat was terribly bland for me. From level 1 to x, that didn't change. I really, really hated WAR. Not that it matters, but that was the one big negative for me. Incredibly boring, slowish, unresponsive, unsatisfying combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 04, 2012, 06:18:32 PM
Funny, because it's the only PvP game I've ever enjoyed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 04, 2012, 06:24:42 PM
Well you have to remember that Falconeer actually exists in a parallel universe that only overlaps with ours in a few places. For example, in the Blood Bowl forum he is able to manifest fully and is thus vunlerable to normal weapons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on June 05, 2012, 02:28:46 AM
Eh, I agree that WAR had plenty of responsiveness issues... it certainly felt more sluggish than WOW, even though I played on a west coast US WOW server at the time, and I do recall instances where enemy positions did not sync with where they were on the screen (WOW did/does this a lot better). It also had the (diku-standard) overpowered/underpowered classes thing; I should know, I played both an ironbreaker and an engineer. Oh yeah, and the stabbiness of Tor Anroc (and I say this as a class with at least 2-3 ways of punting people into lava) / Mourkain Temple (aka whoever has the best ping/speed gets the first pickup and wins 90% of the time).

That said, it was a competent implementation of diku pvp. The rest of the game though... well...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on June 05, 2012, 06:44:20 AM
Being a Swordmaster helped combat the sluggishness since they already were.  (Later they did improve the responsiveness, but enh, WAR.)  Morkain was 90% Chaos getting the ball first due to placement.  That was the map I hated most, even if some of my most impressive moments came from it.
Well you have to remember that Falconeer actually exists in a parallel universe that only overlaps with ours in a few places. For example, in the Blood Bowl forum he is able to manifest fully and is thus vunlerable to normal weapons.
Hah!  I laughed hard.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sjofn on June 05, 2012, 09:55:52 AM
Well you have to remember that Falconeer actually exists in a parallel universe that only overlaps with ours in a few places. For example, in the Blood Bowl forum he is able to manifest fully and is thus vunlerable to normal weapons.

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 05, 2012, 10:02:54 AM
I'm weak to rainbows, but immune to PvE.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 05, 2012, 12:01:31 PM
I actually thought WAR was good 1-21; Tier 2 was cool because you started to see keep sieges and more world PVP and the BGs weren't utter shit. It wasn't until Tier 3 that a) the BGs went to hell (Tor Anroc), b) the leveling curve became REALLY steep and c) there wasn't actually enough level-appropriate PVE content so you had to grind either PQs or BGs in order to advance.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on June 05, 2012, 01:43:12 PM
I love that out of all the mediocre-to-terrible franchise cash-in MMOs over the years, it's this one that's made the groupthink go "The line must be drawn here! This far and no further!". SWTOR being a five-years-out-of-date WoW clone with a ridiculous budget? Fine. AoC being a glorified twenty level demo with "this space to let" filling in for the rest of the game? Still had its defenders. WAR being a complete trainwreck? It's all good. All the other tie-ins going free to play within a year or two? They'll make more money that way.

But someone tries to turn TES into an MMO and it's suddenly :mob: time. It's funny.  :-)

Huh. I seem to recall AoC and WAR being met with multiple JDAM airstrikes and general eye rolling, especially once the hype train met reality. And exploded.

*shrug*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 05, 2012, 03:07:40 PM
I actually thought WAR was good 1-21; Tier 2 was cool because you started to see keep sieges and more world PVP and the BGs weren't utter shit. It wasn't until Tier 3 that a) the BGs went to hell (Tor Anroc), b) the leveling curve became REALLY steep and c) there wasn't actually enough level-appropriate PVE content so you had to grind either PQs or BGs in order to advance.

Tier 3 had some really good battlegrounds. Unfortunately, no one queued for them because they required thought and strategy and weren't just spam knockbacks for free XP LCD design fuckvilles. I swear, I still want to skullfuck the guy that came up with Tor Anroc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 05, 2012, 03:09:45 PM
I'm still waiting for a BG that is just a free for all death match with 10 people in it.  Why do we have to do team oriented shit all the time?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on June 05, 2012, 03:15:39 PM
It's also four years later. For me, this is maybe an acceptable lead up to a game in 2008. But it's not in 2012. It's just fucking not. I played Rift for a month just now. It was great. A great game. A better WoW than WoW. And I unsubbed because I can't do that game anymore. I can't. And TESO is shaping up to be that game again. Why would I get excited about this? It's fucking 2012 and we're all still scrambling (besides GW2) to emulate a game that came out in 2004. Something is desperately wrong here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 05, 2012, 03:57:16 PM
The entire video gaming industry has become far too risk-averse. That's why a guy in his basement was able to develop a multi-million revenue game about mining blocks. I blame this on 3 elements:

1 - Publishers are still struggling with online distribution methods and fear the medium. They blame piracy for products failing, so they put in preventative measures that only screw over actual customers.
3 - Investors are obsessed with the "Gold Rush" mentality. One game strikes it rich doing something, therefore all games like that will be huge successes.
3 - Sizzle has become more important than steak. Blame graphics, PR bullshit, and god-complexes amongst developers. Even the AAA companies can't make money on their AAA titles because they can't manage overhead at all. Also, Developers are man-children who will blow through available cash at a horrifying rate because they can't reconcile vision with reality.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 05, 2012, 05:14:58 PM
You make it sound like it was really easy for Notch to do what he did. It isn't, and it isn't easy for anyone to make a good game, any more than people can just accidentally make good movies or write good novels.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on June 05, 2012, 06:38:20 PM
Bethesda have apparently released a teaser trailer for E3. It doesn't tell us anything about the game but it suggests their marketing is pretty bad as it's a terrible trailer. Tells you nothing about the game, no interesting visuals, no hint of an interesting storyline or setting. I did not feel at all teased.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK57vfI97w

I mean, it might be a good game when it is finally released next year but they'd be better off holding back on the hype until they've got something interesting to show people even if it's just an enticing rendered sequence.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 05, 2012, 06:52:04 PM
What the fuck is that?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on June 05, 2012, 08:35:02 PM
Wow, usually I'm a sucker for a trailer, but that was really bad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on June 05, 2012, 09:07:26 PM
Where's the TES music theme?  That was bad, really poor branding.  It doesn't look like TES and it doesn't sound like TES. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 05, 2012, 09:53:12 PM
You make it sound like it was really easy for Notch to do what he did. It isn't, and it isn't easy for anyone to make a good game, any more than people can just accidentally make good movies or write good novels.

It's far from easy. But if you're insistent upon repackaging the same shit, it's impossible. That's the point. Without risk, there is no innovation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Severian on June 05, 2012, 10:34:08 PM
It seems a logo interrupted some people pensively waiting around for something interesting to happen.

Damn trailer, now I am as excited as they were.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on June 06, 2012, 01:22:45 AM
Free to play within 6 months.
Fucking worthless IP in terms of current MMO stock of fantasy stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 06, 2012, 02:15:18 AM
I wonder how Todd Howard feels about this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on June 06, 2012, 02:42:12 AM
I would venture to guess somewhere between "indifferent" and "annoyed" depending on how much he thinks TESO flopping would impact the overall TES brand.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on June 06, 2012, 04:06:59 AM
Even KOA Online would've been more attractive with the actiony combat than this 'safe and uncreative' take on the TES brand.
How did an IP go from single player sandbox with FPS view turn into a Third Person WoW-clone?
So much derp.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 06, 2012, 10:03:37 AM
Pretty decent article at mmorpg.com: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6457/You-Got-Elder-Scrolls-in-my-MMO.html/page/1

Here's an excerpt:
Quote
An example of PVE content we saw was really promising.  Matt's tank character charged a group of three mobs, one frost mage, a necromancer, and a rogue-like mob as well.  The mage raised a wall of ice to deflect incoming ranged attacks, and laid down a sheet of ice to immobilize Matt.  Meanwhile the rogue got in close to try and take down Matt's HP. Matt dropped him quickly, but the necromancer raised the corpse into a skeleton.  Meanwhile Matt's focus turned to the frost mage, as he used a jumping charge skill to leap over the wall of ice and take out the ranged damage dealer.  The whole time he was blocking attacks, dodging swings, and slamming his shield into enemies in real time.  It's halfway between TERA and GW2 in terms of pacing and "action", if I had to put it to a comparison. It's not as twitch-based as En Masse's game, but it's certainly not just another tab-target affair.

Yeah, I wasn't really impressed with the E3 content yesterday.  The teaser trailer seems dumb.  I'm hoping it is a cut down version of something longer that makes a lot more sense.  The game graphics looked pretty good, though (aside from the incredible hulk orc), and it seems a lot of hands on people are describing the combat as action oriented - so, we'll see.  Maybe more will come out today.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2012, 11:33:35 AM
You make it sound like it was really easy for Notch to do what he did. It isn't, and it isn't easy for anyone to make a good game, any more than people can just accidentally make good movies or write good novels.

Minecraft was not easy. It's also not something a publisher would EVER put money into, because it can't be categorized. But it succeeded BECAUSE it's so different and it's executed well.

As for that trailer? WTF?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 06, 2012, 12:04:31 PM
Pretty decent article at mmorpg.com: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6457/You-Got-Elder-Scrolls-in-my-MMO.html/page/1

Here's an excerpt:
Quote
An example of PVE content we saw was really promising.  Matt's tank character charged a group of three mobs, one frost mage, a necromancer, and a rogue-like mob as well.  The mage raised a wall of ice to deflect incoming ranged attacks, and laid down a sheet of ice to immobilize Matt.  Meanwhile the rogue got in close to try and take down Matt's HP. Matt dropped him quickly, but the necromancer raised the corpse into a skeleton.  Meanwhile Matt's focus turned to the frost mage, as he used a jumping charge skill to leap over the wall of ice and take out the ranged damage dealer.  The whole time he was blocking attacks, dodging swings, and slamming his shield into enemies in real time.  It's halfway between TERA and GW2 in terms of pacing and "action", if I had to put it to a comparison. It's not as twitch-based as En Masse's game, but it's certainly not just another tab-target affair.


That is an excerpt from a pretty decent article?  :oh_i_see:
Sounds like a lame ass piece of journadvertisingism to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on June 06, 2012, 12:25:15 PM
Bethesda have apparently released a teaser trailer for E3. It doesn't tell us anything about the game but it suggests their marketing is pretty bad as it's a terrible trailer. Tells you nothing about the game, no interesting visuals, no hint of an interesting storyline or setting. I did not feel at all teased.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGK57vfI97w

I mean, it might be a good game when it is finally released next year but they'd be better off holding back on the hype until they've got something interesting to show people even if it's just an enticing rendered sequence.

rogues look OP


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 06, 2012, 12:26:41 PM
That is an excerpt from a pretty decent article?  :oh_i_see:
Sounds like a lame ass piece of journadvertisingism to me.

Woops - I almost forgot my earlier oath to not be positive about this game until we've all seen a lot more of it!  I meant to just pass the article along, not *gasp* call it decent.  I hereby recind that compliment!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on June 06, 2012, 12:46:39 PM
Yeah, why didn't you stick to your oath?

Seriously, if you put an excerpt and a link to an article that glorifies and narrates five minutes of gameplay of a MMO in the presence of its lead designer as if they were five minutes from the battle of Helm's Deep, and call it a decent article, you don't come out as passionate. You come out as obsessed. I feel bad for you, if this game sucks you will be so heartbroken.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 06, 2012, 01:26:23 PM
There's no IF. This project is doomed and I think the only people that recognize it in-house are the investors. They are just crossing their fingers they can get some of their costs back after release.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 06, 2012, 01:37:03 PM
Yeah, why didn't you stick to your oath?

Seriously, if you put an excerpt and a link to an article that glorifies and narrates five minutes of gameplay of a MMO in the presence of its lead designer as if they were five minutes from the battle of Helm's Deep, and call it a decent article, you don't come out as passionate. You come out as obsessed. I feel bad for you, if this game sucks you will be so heartbroken.

Your concern is heartwarming; I shall meditate upon it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Soln on June 06, 2012, 02:08:57 PM
Found this E3 presser/interview by chance.   More fly-throughs.  Gave up listening to the interview so I have no idea if anything meaningful or interesting got mentioned.  Sorry. 


http://youtu.be/k1R5R_9Huac (http://youtu.be/k1R5R_9Huac/watch?v=lUZ-e2SkeMI&feature=player_embedded#!)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on June 06, 2012, 02:36:23 PM
There's no IF. This project is doomed and I think the only people that recognize it in-house are the investors. They are just crossing their fingers they can get some of their costs back after release.

Nah. Its all inertia at this point. It can be harder to cancel a project then to just let it ooze along at times because of politics, or someone has a bug in their ear, or because it rained really hard last Tuesday. The investors may actually have no idea because someone internal is blowing smoke.

*shrug*


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on June 06, 2012, 03:24:37 PM
This thing is being lambasted by the press, too.  It's not just us.  If the investors aren't keeping up on the news about the project and are ready to raise their concerns, then they deserve to lose their money when/if the whole things goes to crap.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on June 06, 2012, 03:56:40 PM
Pretty decent article at mmorpg.com: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/6457/You-Got-Elder-Scrolls-in-my-MMO.html/page/1

Here's an excerpt:
Quote
An example of PVE content we saw was really promising.  Matt's tank character charged a group of three mobs, one frost mage, a necromancer, and a rogue-like mob as well.  The mage raised a wall of ice to deflect incoming ranged attacks, and laid down a sheet of ice to immobilize Matt.  Meanwhile the rogue got in close to try and take down Matt's HP. Matt dropped him quickly, but the necromancer raised the corpse into a skeleton.  Meanwhile Matt's focus turned to the frost mage, as he used a jumping charge skill to leap over the wall of ice and take out the ranged damage dealer.  The whole time he was blocking attacks, dodging swings, and slamming his shield into enemies in real time.  It's halfway between TERA and GW2 in terms of pacing and "action", if I had to put it to a comparison. It's not as twitch-based as En Masse's game, but it's certainly not just another tab-target affair.


That is an excerpt from a pretty decent article?  :oh_i_see:
Sounds like a lame ass piece of journadvertisingism to me.

" journadvertisingism" ? by mmorpg.com? Unbelievable :P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on June 06, 2012, 04:46:10 PM
Found this E3 presser/interview by chance.   More fly-throughs.  Gave up listening to the interview so I have no idea if anything meaningful or interesting got mentioned.  Sorry. 


http://youtu.be/k1R5R_9Huac (http://youtu.be/k1R5R_9Huac/watch?v=lUZ-e2SkeMI&feature=player_embedded#!)

Fuck's sake. That looks better than SWTOR (which I still think looks like shit) and worse than Skyrim. Too bad for them, since the people who would want to play this game all expect it to look like... you know, Skyrim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 06, 2012, 04:46:51 PM
This thing is being lambasted by the press, too.  It's not just us.  If the investors aren't keeping up on the news about the project and are ready to raise their concerns, then they deserve to lose their money when/if the whole things goes to crap.

Most likely it's too late to pull their money. They've probably been told this as well. It's a sunk cost.

There's two ways to go with something like this. I believe they will salvage some dignity if they release it as a F2P product with some flashy microtrans system, and they tone down the hype. If they up the hype and go whole hog after the box cost + sub? It'll put SWTOR to absolute shame.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on June 06, 2012, 08:09:28 PM
You make it sound like it was really easy for Notch to do what he did.

He copied Infiniminer and Dwarven Fortress.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pantastic on June 07, 2012, 11:04:51 AM
Nah. Its all inertia at this point. It can be harder to cancel a project then to just let it ooze along at times because of politics, or someone has a bug in their ear, or because it rained really hard last Tuesday. The investors may actually have no idea because someone internal is blowing smoke.

Well, as an investor you can't just say 'ohh, that looks like crap, I'm out' and get all of your money back for free at any time. Even if you have the authority to cancel the project (which is not always the case), you'd still loose what's already been spent on the project. Letting the project go on to completion so that it can earn some money is not always a 'rained really hard' decision; a lot of 'failed' games fell below expectations but at least let the investors get money back in the end, but cancelling means effectively setting the cash already spent on fire.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on June 07, 2012, 11:29:55 AM
The last video of an actual world didn't LOOK particularly bad, but I'm still highly skeptical as to how the game mechanics'll actually play out. Talking about how ~awesome~ it'll be is one thing, actually showing how it'll play in an actual play session is quite another.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 07, 2012, 12:04:24 PM
Nah. Its all inertia at this point. It can be harder to cancel a project then to just let it ooze along at times because of politics, or someone has a bug in their ear, or because it rained really hard last Tuesday. The investors may actually have no idea because someone internal is blowing smoke.

Well, as an investor you can't just say 'ohh, that looks like crap, I'm out' and get all of your money back for free at any time. Even if you have the authority to cancel the project (which is not always the case), you'd still loose what's already been spent on the project. Letting the project go on to completion so that it can earn some money is not always a 'rained really hard' decision; a lot of 'failed' games fell below expectations but at least let the investors get money back in the end, but cancelling means effectively setting the cash already spent on fire.

Setting the cash on fire is often better. Savings between now and a 2013 release, I can almost guarantee you it's going to cost them less than any return they will get upon completion less the variable costs of operation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pantastic on June 07, 2012, 12:13:51 PM
Savings between now and a 2013 release,

Oh, I didn't pay that much attention to details, I thought it was coming out sometime this year. It was more a general comment on investors trying to pull out than specific to ESO


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on June 07, 2012, 01:36:24 PM
Nah. Its all inertia at this point. It can be harder to cancel a project then to just let it ooze along at times because of politics, or someone has a bug in their ear, or because it rained really hard last Tuesday. The investors may actually have no idea because someone internal is blowing smoke.

Well, as an investor you can't just say 'ohh, that looks like crap, I'm out' and get all of your money back for free at any time. Even if you have the authority to cancel the project (which is not always the case), you'd still loose what's already been spent on the project. Letting the project go on to completion so that it can earn some money is not always a 'rained really hard' decision; a lot of 'failed' games fell below expectations but at least let the investors get money back in the end, but cancelling means effectively setting the cash already spent on fire.

You're right. The current investment capitol is gone.

That's no reason to give them *more*.

This goes well beyond games. The hallmark of good project management is to know when something has gone off the rails *And Do Something About It*. I can't think of many instances of when 'just push through and release it' had good results, and I can think of *lots* of instances when this destroyed the company's reputation (at a minimum. More often than not the whole house folds) let alone their ability to contract new work in the future.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 07, 2012, 01:38:19 PM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on June 07, 2012, 04:40:02 PM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

Can you be more specific or name a game that doesn't have hot bar combat?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on June 07, 2012, 04:40:28 PM
That is an excerpt from a pretty decent article?  :oh_i_see:
Sounds like a lame ass piece of journadvertisingism to me.

If you go to mmorpg.com for anything other than press releases or advertisements, you will always be disappointed. I wouldn't be surprised if most of their reviews were written by publisher PR departments.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Daeven on June 07, 2012, 05:16:51 PM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

No. It'll be hot-gesture combat. You waggle your fingers into the Kinect or camera enabled Smart TV. The most convincing and closest to the pre-memorized somatic routine wins.  A giant panda graphic will appear, crushing your opponent in testament to your awesomeness.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on June 07, 2012, 06:58:51 PM
I don't know, the gaming press seems pretty warm on the game to me

http://www.gamesradar.com/elder-scrolls-online-preview-just-another-mmo/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on June 07, 2012, 07:28:31 PM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

Can you be more specific or name a game that doesn't have hot bar combat?



SKYRIM


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on June 07, 2012, 07:58:36 PM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

Can you be more specific or name a game that doesn't have hot bar combat?



SKYRIM

Right. Cause favorites are far superior.




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on June 07, 2012, 08:24:53 PM
Well it's at least interesting that multiple sources have said that the combat is somewhere between TERA and GuildWars2, GW2 itself being between TERA and WoW. So, hey, that's 1 thing!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 07, 2012, 11:35:33 PM
Lot of interviews from E3 - but this one is actually with Matt Firor.  I found it informative - his answers are more direct than Sage's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CDnR3e_zs7I


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on June 07, 2012, 11:57:58 PM
Right. Cause favorites are far superior.

Aiming a bow is far superior than hitting ` or possibly 2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cyrrex on June 08, 2012, 12:51:37 AM
Right. Cause favorites are far superior.

Aiming a bow is far superior than hitting ` or possibly 2.

Or even pressing 3 and then making sure the dude is in front of my before I set him on fire.  All of these things are, while possibly not brilliant, more fun that hot bar combat.  Favorites just switch the weapon (and I can use any fucking goddamn weapon I want).  Another thing about Skyrim combat?  No rotation for me.  I have no set pattern for how I attack, ever.  Totally spontaneous.  Cooldowns are a virtual non-factor.  I can skill up in anything I want to, just by doing it.  I can pick up anything in the environment, because who knows if that broken elf cranium might be worth something.

TESO will lack almost all of these things, PLUS it will look like ass in comparison.  It also won't let me break into people's houses and steal all the shit/murder the occupants.  I won't be able to use any cool mods, or mods that otherwise fix stupid issues.

In short, this game will have nothing to do with any other TES games other than the lore.  And guess what?  Fuck TES lore, that's what.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on June 08, 2012, 08:37:09 AM
Does this still have hot-bar combat?

Can you be more specific or name a game that doesn't have hot bar combat?



The Elder Scrolls series.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2012, 09:55:04 AM
Lot of interviews from E3 - but this one is actually with Matt Firor.  I found it informative - his answers are more direct than Sage's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CDnR3e_zs7I

Good ole Pokket. Too many generic questions in that interview though.  But I did like the tidbit on warriors picking up a healing staff to heal.

I don't know, the gaming press seems pretty warm on the game to me

http://www.gamesradar.com/elder-scrolls-online-preview-just-another-mmo/

I'm ok with a game that is attempting to refine the public quest or event stuff that GW2 is attempting.  If this game is actually somewhere between tera and gw2 I will also be interested in this game.  As long as it's engaging and not WOW/RIFT/TSW ish.  I'm more interested in the game than I was initially.  The devs needs to stop talking about lore, world, quests and levels and start focusing on action combat, 3 factions and event questing.

Stop giving us Heroic Dungeons!  Lore!  Objects you can click to read story!  Achievements!  It's like a car salesman bragging about having anti-lock breaks and seat belts.

Also: $20 says they don't launch with a LFD feature and say it's about community, then attempt to launch one after.. maybe.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on June 08, 2012, 09:57:05 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2012, 10:04:35 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

You just described every single FPS game ever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on June 08, 2012, 10:09:43 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

You just described every single  game ever.

FYP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: zabuni on June 08, 2012, 10:11:27 AM
Sorry to reply late, but those giant advertisements on the buildings make a little more sense if you know where they are. That's a hotel right outside the Los Angeles Convention Center, and they usually put a poster for some game at every E3. A few years ago it was Final Fantasy 13.

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2009/05/26/gigantic-final-fantasy-xiii-posters-confirms-2010-us-launch.htm

Still, it's a bit much so early on.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on June 08, 2012, 10:35:35 AM
Sorry to reply late, but those giant advertisements on the buildings make a little more sense if you know where they are. That's a hotel right outside the Los Angeles Convention Center, and they usually put a poster for some game at every E3. A few years ago it was Final Fantasy 13.

http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2009/05/26/gigantic-final-fantasy-xiii-posters-confirms-2010-us-launch.htm

Still, it's a bit much so early on.

Cool...Welcome.

 :grin: :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 08, 2012, 11:48:02 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

The best "combat" game I've played is probably Just Cause 2 and the endless parachutes.

Skyrim wasn't bad though, and it's 10x as engaging as anything I've ever seen with a hotbar. I want you to think back to the very first time you played an MMO. Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons? I remember that exact feeling on DAOC when I loaded it up for the first time. I was very disappointing, but you overlook it for a while to see what it's about.

We've overlooked that reaction for 10 years now. Enough is enough.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sky on June 08, 2012, 11:51:49 AM
Just popping in to point out the issue isn't hotbar combat so much as tab target.

Hotbars are a nice way to have a variety of combat abilities at your fingertips on the pc. Having to select a target to use them seems to be more the issue.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Speedy Cerviche on June 08, 2012, 11:59:04 AM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

You just described every single FPS game ever.

Mount & Blade?

Why isn't someone making a MMO clone of it? It's just screaming for it,


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on June 08, 2012, 12:03:26 PM
I know that everyone here loathes hotbar combat but if you think that the combat in any Elder Scrolls game was great, lol.

Yeah, clicking the left mousebutton over and over on the mans until he fell down was interesting and dynamic or something.

You just described every single FPS game ever.

Mount & Blade?

Why isn't someone making a MMO clone of it? It's just screaming for it,

Cause it doesn't have 12 million subscribers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Murgos on June 08, 2012, 12:10:28 PM
I want you to think back to the very first time you played an MMO. Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons?

The first MMO I ever played was UO.  Just pointing out that even not having hot bars/auto attack doesn't mean your combat it good.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on June 08, 2012, 12:42:52 PM
Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons? I remember that exact feeling on DAOC when I loaded it up for the first time.

I don't remember ever feeling this way.  I was never a big FPS guy, though - maybe that's why?  I remember accidentally attacking a guard in EQ, lol - talk about a horrible realization.  DAOC, as I remember it, was very visceral, also; you could literally sprint up to an enemy and execute a combat style (even positional - IE backstab where you had to be actually at his back) in real time - I really don't get your gripe.  As Sky pointed out, your complaint would make more sense if you were mad about having to lock a target, rather than having to use hotbars...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2012, 01:09:43 PM
Just popping in to point out the issue isn't hotbar combat so much as tab target.

Hotbars are a nice way to have a variety of combat abilities at your fingertips on the pc. Having to select a target to use them seems to be more the issue.

Good point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on June 08, 2012, 01:59:31 PM
Just popping in to point out the issue isn't hotbar combat so much as tab target.

Hotbars are a nice way to have a variety of combat abilities at your fingertips on the pc. Having to select a target to use them seems to be more the issue.

This. I like TERAs combat which is also technically hotbar combat. Even something like an FPS is really hotbar combat, where you're pressing 1-6 hotkeys to select abilities (weapons, grenades) to use. The difference is in the targeting. "Hot bar combat" isn't a great way to describe what I don't like about current MMO combat, but I don't think "tab-target combat" is especially clear either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 08, 2012, 02:00:56 PM
I dislike combat where your skills are on a hotbar, you have to lock on target things or tab target, and the phrase "Global Cooldown" is used.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on June 08, 2012, 02:10:57 PM
Everything has a global cooldown, in every game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 08, 2012, 08:47:23 PM
I want you to think back to the very first time you played an MMO. Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons? I remember that exact feeling on DAOC when I loaded it up for the first time. I was very disappointing, but you overlook it for a while to see what it's about.

We've overlooked that reaction for 10 years now. Enough is enough.
I come from a MUD background, where most of current-MMO combat mechanics have their roots. Auto-attack was a mechanism to show that your character could attack faster than you personally could type the word "attack", and the concept of a GCD was there for largely the same reason: to ensure fights didn't come down purely to who had the better combination of typing speed (or macro use) and internet connection. When I made the transition to MMOs the combat system wasn't some crazy huge shock. In fact as someone who likes turn-based RPGs the combat is pretty familiar. You don't click Fire2 and aim like an FPS in a Final Fantasy game, so I don't see why I should have to in an MMORPG. The general trend of making MMOs less RPG and more God of War is not really one I'm a fan of, particularly since I don't feel action games play well with kb+m (but I don't want to use a controller for gameplay then a kb+m for chatting, menus, etc. because it just feels clunky).

Now, that's just about MMOs in general; putting WoW-style combat (which I'm generally a fan of) into an Elder Scrolls game is pretty fucking stupid, just because it's a really strong departure from the franchise. I'd forgive them that if the game was skill-based instead of class based, but...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 08, 2012, 10:03:35 PM
Do you remember that first horrible realization when you realize that you couldn't attack anything? That you had to autoattack and push buttons? I remember that exact feeling on DAOC when I loaded it up for the first time.

I don't remember ever feeling this way.  I was never a big FPS guy, though - maybe that's why?  I remember accidentally attacking a guard in EQ, lol - talk about a horrible realization.  DAOC, as I remember it, was very visceral, also; you could literally sprint up to an enemy and execute a combat style (even positional - IE backstab where you had to be actually at his back) in real time - I really don't get your gripe.  As Sky pointed out, your complaint would make more sense if you were mad about having to lock a target, rather than having to use hotbars...

I never felt like that either. Arcade combat always feels like a step back to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 08, 2012, 10:13:31 PM
What threw me off about playing DaoC for the first time was the idea of Target Lock. Every other game I played let me swing/shoot whatever I was aiming at, even the games that had actual Target Locking mechanics like Mechwarrior 2.


The hotbar itself was a non-issue. The issue with hotbar combat is when you end up with 7 of them  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 08, 2012, 10:24:35 PM
Target Locking* (I do not like this term) is in almost all RPGs. You say "I shoot magic missile at the goblin" not "I shoot magic missile north" and hope it hits something. It's like a staple of RPGs, and I don't really see how it could come as a shock to anyone who played single player RPGs before getting into MMOs.

*Did DaoC have some weird system that only let you attack one thing at a time, or was it like WoW where you changed targets by clicking on a new mob? I've never played it but if it's the former than I rescind my original statement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 08, 2012, 10:28:57 PM
You could change targets, yes. And I agree with you on the targeting thing. One of the reasons I play RPGs is specifically because I want a layer of abstraction between my character and me. I want to tell my character, 'attack that guy', not aim at him manually. Skyrim and FO3/NV are good games but I don't enjoy them because of the combat, I'd be just as happy if not happier with them if they had MMO hotbar/targetlock combat (sacrilege, I know.) M&B is the only one I've played where I feel like the different combat actually adds anything really.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 08, 2012, 10:30:48 PM
It was like WoW.


Every other RPG I had played was essentially turn based, so the idea of selecting a target made sense in that context. MMO's despite their best efforts at times, are not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on June 08, 2012, 10:39:39 PM
One of the reasons I play RPGs is specifically because I want a layer of abstraction between my character and me. I want to tell my character, 'attack that guy', not aim at him manually. Skyrim and FO3/NV are good games but I don't enjoy them because of the combat, I'd be just as happy if not happier with them if they had MMO hotbar/targetlock combat (sacrilege, I know.)

That's the difference (between people) it seems. I played WoW for a good 3 years and never felt there was anything 'wrong' with tab-target, but by now I am sick of it. Nowadays it feels gamey, stale and something that is kept out of tradition or inertia rather than being a mechanic which improves the game.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on June 08, 2012, 10:47:32 PM
A hotbar is different from a keyboard shortcut. The key point about a hotbar is that it is an actual bar, as in an onscreen UI element, usually because you have a million abilities and you need to actually look at the icons to see cooldowns.

Sure, in an FPS you can press 1-10 to swap weapons and sometimes this will make a bar appear but you don't need to be looking at the bar.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on June 08, 2012, 11:15:49 PM
I should have prefaced my DAOC reaction comment for people that didn't grow up on RPGs or tabletop games. I very much dislike the idea of turn-based RPG number combat because of the artificial rules and constraints.

Whereas I love the combat of Skyrim, Jedi Knight, and ME1 because they have RPG elements without the stoppage.

And yet, I should add, I feel exactly the reverse about strategy games. I can't stand real time strategy maps, but I love the turn-based models.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 08, 2012, 11:19:07 PM
It's only an issue when you end up with 7 bars though.

Like in Mechwarrior 2 (3456 and beyond), you would group your weapon systems into fire groups (which could then be fired individually, or all at once, or in any combination in between), each weapon type had its own cooldown/reload times, you had armor/damage sectors, heat management, your speed, possibly your jump jet management, this is all part of the game interface. It's really not that far removed from MMO hotbar combat in that regard.




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on June 08, 2012, 11:44:17 PM
A hotbar is different from a keyboard shortcut. The key point about a hotbar is that it is an actual bar, as in an onscreen UI element, usually because you have a million abilities and you need to actually look at the icons to see cooldowns.

Sure, in an FPS you can press 1-10 to swap weapons and sometimes this will make a bar appear but you don't need to be looking at the bar.

Plenty of FPS games (especially on consoles) have HUD elements with buttons to select weapons/abilities that do not fade. The hotbar itself isn't what makes MMO combat shitty.

You don't need to be looking at the bar in most MMOs either. Sure, some MMOs (SWTOR) you really need to be staring at the hotbar to see when abilities are ready to use, but it's not really the case for WoW especially with the default-UI power aura notifications. The combat is still pretty stale for me, and it has nothing to do with the bars.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: LC on June 09, 2012, 08:01:19 AM
I think the problem is that a one armed man with 2 fingers can easily win at Tab123 combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on June 09, 2012, 10:34:31 AM
I should have prefaced my DAOC reaction comment for people that didn't grow up on RPGs or tabletop games. I very much dislike the idea of turn-based RPG number combat because of the artificial rules and constraints.

Whereas I love the combat of Skyrim, Jedi Knight, and ME1 because they have RPG elements without the stoppage.
My tastes are almost the complete opposite; I like Skyrim despite the combat, never played JK, and was too turned off by the fact that ME1 was a glorified FPS to make it more than halfway through. The VATS system largely saved Fallout 3/NV for me; without those I would be pretty awful and probably wouldn't have finished them either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on June 09, 2012, 03:13:37 PM
I can deal with FPS-ish combat a lot easier when it involves guns, to the point where I actually liked the combat in ME2/ME3. But not with swords.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on June 10, 2012, 05:26:30 AM
My tastes are almost the complete opposite; I like Skyrim despite the combat, never played JK, and was too turned off by the fact that ME1 was a glorified FPS to make it more than halfway through. The VATS system largely saved Fallout 3/NV for me; without those I would be pretty awful and probably wouldn't have finished them either.

You're sick!

Not meaning any offense and neither mean to glorify FPS (I suck at those), but I do hope the market splits up enough to cater to both tastes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on June 10, 2012, 07:29:40 PM
As a broad question, what has the FPS genre done to it mechanics that have extended it past its roots? The major changes I can think of are RMB for secondary weapon, crouch / crawl / lean and using cover.

I wonder why it is that MMOs can feel so stale for having stuck with core mechanics while FPS titles (which arguably haven't moved as far forward as MMOs over the same time frame) can still feel relatively fresh and fun. Time taken to "complete" a MMO versus FPS might have something to do with it, of course.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tgr on June 10, 2012, 08:20:35 PM
As a broad question, what has the FPS genre done to it mechanics that have extended it past its roots? The major changes I can think of are RMB for secondary weapon, crouch / crawl / lean and using cover.
The roots were wolf3d/doom, and I think the main thing has been to add to the control schemes while not makin it necessarily more complex to actually use. I can't really go back and play wolf3d or doom these days without noticing that it is clunky.

The only change I really do not agree with (or disagree with at all, really), has been the addition of a cover system, since it normally takes away control for a few seconds, and selects the wrong target to cover behind too often.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on June 10, 2012, 11:51:58 PM
As a broad question, what has the FPS genre done to it mechanics that have extended it past its roots? The major changes I can think of are RMB for secondary weapon, crouch / crawl / lean and using cover.

Vehicles?

I think Neal Stephenson in that clang kickstarter video got it right. If you have a virtual world, interesting physics and immediate feedback to player actions the game can have an innate fun. And as a result making more complex environments to have the same fun in is fine. It's the action RPG model and probably going to become dominant.

It doesn't work quite so well on MMO's because the physics is either hackable or simplified to avoid killing the server, because lag means player actions are not quite as immediate or target position so exact, and because they tend to have a slower paced, party tactical focus. That's why your character tends to have lots of situational powers and thus needs a hot-bar whereas that many buttons would just slow and distract the action RPG game. I expect this approach to continue to retreat though, servers and net infrastructure keep improving and it's too "slow" for the console generation.




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on June 11, 2012, 12:15:22 AM
I wonder why it is that MMOs can feel so stale for having stuck with core mechanics while FPS titles (which arguably haven't moved as far forward as MMOs over the same time frame) can still feel relatively fresh and fun.

I would argue that very few FPS games feel "fresh." However they do feel fun, because the mechanics of FPS games are pretty enjoyable.

The mechanics of MMOs by comparison are not very enjoyable - fighting the same enemies over and over using the some rotation of abilities, the level design is completely irrelevant, the mobs barely do anything, etc. The whole idea of the tank class in MMOs is to make combat as dull and predictable as possible by ensuring that fights go exactly the way players determine and mobs display zero autonomy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on June 11, 2012, 01:26:33 AM

The mechanics of MMO's are just a foundation for interesting group dynamics and the satisfaction of precise execution.

The whole idea of the tank class in MMOs is to make combat as dull and predictable as possible by ensuring that fights go exactly the way players determine and mobs display zero autonomy.

... not really, if anything WoW almost went too far by making raid mobs have far too much capability. If anything it's FPS games that have the dumb mobs and no real diversity of mechanics to killing them because they're just target dummies.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on June 11, 2012, 04:21:57 AM
That again, depends entirely on the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on July 18, 2012, 09:56:36 AM
Here is a new interview with Matt Firor:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-07-17-the-elder-scrolls-online-reinventing-a-franchise-in-an-online-world

Quote
Q: Do you see this as something all the Skyrim fans are going to play, or is it more like you just want to create an MMO and it happens to be using Elder Scrolls lore? Who's the audience?

Matt Firor: We just want to make a good game and let people who want to play it, play it. It is an online game. MMO is a tired expression. It is an online RPG and we designed it to be a great game. People who like other Elder Scrolls games will probably want to try it, but people who play other MMOs like WoW or Star Wars are also going to want to try it too. So if it's not a good game, no one is going to want to play it. First and foremost, we want to make sure the game is sticky and fun, and that was our first priority. If we do that, all of our other questions are answered.

250 people working on the game right now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2012, 10:17:54 AM
I give the interviewer credit, as he asked the right question right out of the box.

Quote
Q: As soon as the game was announced, the biggest concern for Elder Scrolls fans was "how can they be taking this online? They are missing the point of what Elder Scrolls is!"...What was the conversation like internally with Bethesda about taking this property online?

Matt Firor: You said the thing that is the most important. It is the franchise that we are taking online, not the single-player game. The single-player games are still the single-player games. We're taking the license and the franchise online and doing something with it that hasn't been done before, much like the Elder Scrolls novels

Yeah, there's a solid comparison. I bet you this game does as well as those novels, too. Let me take a look and see how those are selling. Hmm, one from 2009 is #17,252 on the books bestseller list. One from 2011 is #35,625. The fucking Skyrim GUIDE (not a novel, not a story, a GUIDE to a single player game) is #421 on the books list.

Quote
Q: Does Todd have any kind of say in game design choices, or is it all you and he doesn't offer suggestions?

Matt Firor: He's made it clear that this is an online RPG and he is not an online RPG developer. We need to make the decisions that we need to make.

Short answer, Todd doesn't want anything to do with you fuckers establishing this game as canon lore.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on July 18, 2012, 10:21:53 AM
They have Elder Scrolls novels?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on July 18, 2012, 10:43:37 AM
Quote
We're taking the license and the franchise online and doing something with it that hasn't been done before

Is he claiming the game itself will do things that haven't been done before or just that this game will be doing something new with the franchise/brand?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 18, 2012, 11:07:32 AM
The latter. This game isn't going to be breaking any ground in the MMO genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on July 18, 2012, 01:58:58 PM
They have Elder Scrolls novels?

Furry sex danger level: orange


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on July 18, 2012, 08:39:14 PM
They have Elder Scrolls novels?

Furry sex danger level: orange

Tiger suit orange or orangutan suit orange?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on July 19, 2012, 07:17:54 AM
Since I'm pretty sure there were cat people but not ape people in TES, I'd go with Tiger.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on July 19, 2012, 09:03:58 AM
Go Argonian or go home. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stormwaltz on July 19, 2012, 09:59:25 AM
Since I'm pretty sure there were ... not ape people in TES...

Imga. (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Imga)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on July 19, 2012, 01:38:30 PM
Go Argonian or go home. :oh_i_see:

I'm going home.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on July 19, 2012, 07:14:06 PM
I'd expect that from an Imga.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on July 22, 2012, 09:04:21 AM
They have Elder Scrolls novels?

Assuming you're not being facetious yes, they do. Naturally, they're pretty terrible. I believe the 2009 one was written by some dude who had no connection to the series at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on July 22, 2012, 12:51:43 PM
I both had no idea until Paelos mentioned it, and I was adding in the joke that, much like the novels, it wasn't going to attract the attention of Elder Scrolls fans.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on October 04, 2012, 02:02:48 PM
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-09-18-bethesda-go-anywhere-do-anything

An article from the marketing VP over at Bethesda. Normally you get PR speak, but here's my favorite quote in the whole damn thing.

Quote
In one sense it does give us a sense of confidence in terms of people being aware of the Elder Scrolls," he says, "but we recognise that, while there are certainly a number of things about Elder Scrolls Online that share a commonality with Skyrim - setting, tone, themes, very basic things like races and exploring and being able to go where you want - it's also a very different kind of game. There are things that you can get away with and pull off in a single player game that you simply can't do in a multiplayer game.

Part of what makes a Fallout or a Skyrim great is that we can custom craft the entire experience to be about you. There's no game balancing issues, like how are you versus this other person; there is no other person... Nobody else can screw with your experience. With an MMO, that changes to the nth degree. We now have to worry about if you found that sword, how does that sword change your relationship with everybody else in the world. And what you can do in PvP, and how much you can sell that for, and all of those different things are a huge shift.

Even the PR guy has to admit they've taken a left turn here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: brellium on October 04, 2012, 03:28:19 PM
Go Argonian or go home. :oh_i_see:

I'm going home.
So going the Lusty Argonian Maid route.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 22, 2012, 06:07:53 PM
Ton of new articles out today, following some sort of preview event.

Interesting stuff.  Here's one that has a lot of info, but there are many more:

http://tamrielfoundry.com/2012/10/eso-media-event/

Edit to add this link - it has a nice clean list of most of the new info:

http://acolytesguild.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/elder-scrolls-online-preview/

It almost sounds like the devs listened to some of the criticism and refocused their efforts to appease the fan base.  Inconceivable!!

Some Highlights:

 - Megaserver - everyone is on the same server.  They manage RVR by having "campaigns" or versions of Cyrodiil that your character(s) is tied to.  You and everyone in that campaign are persistently at war with each other.  It sounds like a very sophisticated kind of instancing.

 - Combat - it seems likey they have continued to tweak the combat to be more action oriented.  There is soft targetting, but you can, optionally, lock your target in.  You use the mouse buttons to swing main weapon, and block, and a combination of those two will trigger a shield bash or something equivalent if you don't have  a shield.  Still lots of talk about combos, and reactions, etc.  Reviewers all sound more positive than the stuff we heard in May.

 - Graphics - none of the complaints we heard about graphics from the early articles seem to be present.  The screenshots look pretty awesome, imo.

Overall, it sounds like these guys are pulling out all the stops.  It makes SWTOR seem very low budget/rushed in comparison.  Well that's my perception.  I'm a silly fanboy, though.

Cheers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on October 22, 2012, 06:37:48 PM
They have a lot more done than I would have expected at this point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Cadaverine on October 22, 2012, 07:22:58 PM

Quote
We’ll never have to close shards because they are empty, and there will never be server queues.

 :awesome_for_real:

I am interested in their claims that the game will put you in instances of zones alongside people you normally group with, or whatever.  Given that I usually avoid other people like the plague, does that mean I'll eventually get my own instance of each zone all to myself?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on October 22, 2012, 08:47:33 PM
Hah, if they fail, they deserve to.
This MMO has no reason to exist. Warning signs already there. People weren't asking for this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on October 22, 2012, 09:08:10 PM
They have a lot more done than I would have expected at this point.

I think this is supposed to go live next year, is it not?

Combat is really the only thing I noticed there that jumped out at me as encouraging.

Not sure how I feel about the targeting system: I am beyond bored with tab targeting at this point, and this sounds like a half step away from that.  So, on the one hand, great that they're at least moving away... but on the other hand, I can't help but be worried that this is still basically tab targeting just dolled up to look like something else.  I hope that it won't do more harm than good in the service of looking kind of slightly more superficially similar to a game is fundamentally quite different.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on October 23, 2012, 03:07:27 AM
(http://www.jamietrinca.co.uk/uploads/1134695493_73.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 23, 2012, 09:02:30 AM
They have a lot more done than I would have expected at this point.

Looks like they are using a good deal of models and such from skyrim.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on October 23, 2012, 10:32:38 PM
Well, the good thing about this is no one is going to be disappointed.

Except maybe blackwulf, but if we all give him a group-hug I am sure he'll get over it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 23, 2012, 10:49:23 PM
Very sweet - yes, I will take any hugs that are sent my way!

Also -

Here's an interview with Matt Firor that covers a lot of the info regarding megaserver, combat, pvp, etc.: http://mmohuts.com/videos/elder-scrolls-online-reveal-interview


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on October 24, 2012, 03:51:39 AM
Who art thou, blackwulf? :headscratch:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on October 24, 2012, 08:48:15 AM
The combat does sound like they listened to the people who thought tab-target was spitting in the face of the franchise.

I'm not sure how much they can overhaul that, though. In the first round of information they were pimping ability synergies. Can you do both? We'll see.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on October 24, 2012, 09:17:06 AM
Except maybe blackwulf, but if we all give him a group-hug I am sure he'll get over it.
He can suffer.  No group-hugs from me!  Muahahaha.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on October 24, 2012, 02:28:14 PM
Official community site is up. This is new, isn't it?

http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/

EDIT: (No it's not)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on October 25, 2012, 10:19:59 AM
It's a time portal to mmo promo sites from 2004

enh, fuckit. this game ain't even worth making fun of anymore.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on October 25, 2012, 10:31:39 AM
I'm waiting for a video of the combat system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on October 25, 2012, 02:23:06 PM
I'm waiting for a video of the combat system.

It'll be one of those things like when you look at Tera's mass pvp and have all those feelings about Why You Don't Do This Anymore™ dredged up.

Some real thin-slicing stuff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 26, 2012, 11:37:56 PM
All right, so my level of excitement for this game has gone through some phases.  When I first read about it in the leaked Game Informer article, I was pretty stoked.  Then E3 came, and no one was super impressed by what they saw.  Then 5 months of silence from Zenimax Online.  My level of excitement was waning to record low levels.

Then this recent hands on demonstration event occurred.  I know you guys don't follow all the news about this game like some of us do, and I can understand your underwhelmed attitude - but if you look at some of the reviews from the people that went to this hands on event with an open mind, you might find your interest picking up.

One example is this podcast - it's 2 hours long.  I didn't think I would listen to the whole thing, but I turned it on while I was catching up on some grading and it was actually really interesting.

http://elderscrollsotr.mymiddleearth.com/2012/10/26/episode-43-hands-on-with-eso/

Some points they make that I hadn't heard before:

- The guy is a hard core Skyrim player (self described) and he says it felt like Skyrim, only better.  He makes a comment about going back to Skyrim and being annoyed that it isn't TESO.

- Tons of exploring, and no quest hubs - massive (their words) areas to explore

- They claim the graphics look even better in motion and that they are better than Skyrim.

- One of the other guys, who was also at the hands on, is a GW2 player and he addresses a lot of the comparisons between the two MMOs.  I won't go into all the details, but it was interesting that his perception was that, yes, they do have some similar systems (weapon based skills, synergies) but the TESO ones were far more sophisticated and in depth - he made the comparison of elementary school vs. college. (or something like that)

It goes on and on - character development, animations, etc.  It all was very positive, and these guys sound genuine.  Now, of course, they could be shills.  Yes, all the other people invited to this event and writing good reviews could be shills.  I just think that someone would say something negative - can you really buy all those guys off?  I mean like 40+ people from various websites and guilds?

Anyway, my excitement level is rising again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on October 27, 2012, 07:11:45 AM
A guy from a website dedicated to TESO coverage does not have an "open mind" about whether it's good or not. He's already invested.

Which doesn't mean that he's wrong! I don't care. Nothing about this game is interesting to me right now, for good or ill, but I'd be thrilled if it ended up a good game. I like good games. But let's not act like a TESO fan site is somehow a neutral observer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 27, 2012, 07:38:12 AM
A guy from a website dedicated to TESO coverage does not have an "open mind" about whether it's good or not. He's already invested.

Which doesn't mean that he's wrong! I don't care. Nothing about this game is interesting to me right now, for good or ill, but I'd be thrilled if it ended up a good game. I like good games. But let's not act like a TESO fan site is somehow a neutral observer.

I get that, and I agree - but they had people there from Massively, MMORPG (yeah I know), MMO Reporter, MMO Attack, MMO Hut, MPOGD, RPG Gamer, RPG Fan, Strategy Informer, TenTon Hammer, ZAM - and a bunch of guilds and fan sites.  I've looked through most of the writeups from these people, and I can't find any negatives. 

I guess the point I was making in my previous post was not that the guys in that 2 hour podcast are objective, but that I don't think everyone who went to this event is likely to be reporting some positive lies about the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on October 27, 2012, 09:47:09 AM
Massively, MMORPG (yeah I know), MMO Reporter, MMO Attack, MMO Hut, MPOGD, RPG Gamer, RPG Fan, Strategy Informer, TenTon Hammer, ZAM - and a bunch of guilds and fan sites.  I've looked through most of the writeups from these people, and I can't find any negatives. 

All these people want to be invited back and what they see now can change substantially between then and launch. Plus its a studio with a lot of vocal fans. So comments are unlikely to be negative.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on October 27, 2012, 02:04:17 PM
I guess the point I was making in my previous post was not that the guys in that 2 hour podcast are objective, but that I don't think everyone who went to this event is likely to be reporting some positive lies about the game.

"Lies" is a strong word, but I hang out with too many fringe weirdos to put any weight behind the "everyone who was there says it so it must be true" gestalt argument.  Tell me what the game concepts are, show me what the graphics look like, but don't expect me to believe that it's all great just because some guy I've never met says he thinks they're better than Skyrim.

To be clear, I don't think the game sounds horrible (aside from shitting all over the idea of what the Elder Scrolls is about, which is totally fine if we get an awesome game out of it) but it does sound generic, unless there's something really groundbreaking announced in that podcast.  That's not an automatic fail, there are plenty of people out there who want another generic MMO.  But that means it does ultimately all come down to the implementation.  And I can't evaluate that at this point.  No amount of guys saying "no really, it's gonna be awesome, trust me" is going to change the fact that the game systems aren't finalized, the graphics aren't finished, and the content isn't complete.

I agree, it could be awesome.  I just have no proof that it will be (or won't be).  I guess we'll see.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on October 28, 2012, 01:20:58 AM
Gamespy loves Warhammer Online. (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/759615p1.html)
So does Worthplaying. (http://worthplaying.com/article/2006/4/4/previews/32279/)
IGN was really stoked about the preview. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2007/01/31/warhammer-online-hands-on-2)  Then when it launched they gave it a 9/10. (http://ca.ign.com/games/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/pc-748723)
1up's writer was addicted within the first week. (http://www.1up.com/previews/warhammer-online)  Later reviews gave it a B (http://www.1up.com/reviews/warhammer-online-age-reckoning), seemingly because of faction balance issues more than anything else.
MMORPG previewer was having a blast. (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/feature/2240/WAR-What-is-it-Good-For-Is-It-Worth-Your-Money.html) In review they gave it a 8.4 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/78).  Then a 7.5 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/115).  Then a 7.4 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/165). :why_so_serious:
X-play gave it a perfect score. (http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/09/29/g4s-x-play-reviews-warhammer-online/)
Massively was excited about it too. (http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/09/27/anti-aliased-war-huh-what-is-it-good-for/)
Gamespot gave it an 8.5 in review. (http://www.gamespot.com/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/reviews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-review-6198529/)
Thank god for news aggregators (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/180578/previews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/), preserving your little embarrassments (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/197527/reviews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-review/) for posterity.
And now I'm getting bored of this. (http://www.gamesradar.com/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-preview-brain-dump/)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on October 28, 2012, 01:41:54 PM
Gamespy loves Warhammer Online. (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/warhammer-online/759615p1.html)
So does Worthplaying. (http://worthplaying.com/article/2006/4/4/previews/32279/)
IGN was really stoked about the preview. (http://ca.ign.com/articles/2007/01/31/warhammer-online-hands-on-2)  Then when it launched they gave it a 9/10. (http://ca.ign.com/games/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/pc-748723)
1up's writer was addicted within the first week. (http://www.1up.com/previews/warhammer-online)  Later reviews gave it a B (http://www.1up.com/reviews/warhammer-online-age-reckoning), seemingly because of faction balance issues more than anything else.
MMORPG previewer was having a blast. (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/feature/2240/WAR-What-is-it-Good-For-Is-It-Worth-Your-Money.html) In review they gave it a 8.4 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/78).  Then a 7.5 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/115).  Then a 7.4 (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/239/view/reviews/load/165). :why_so_serious:
X-play gave it a perfect score. (http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/09/29/g4s-x-play-reviews-warhammer-online/)
Massively was excited about it too. (http://massively.joystiq.com/2008/09/27/anti-aliased-war-huh-what-is-it-good-for/)
Gamespot gave it an 8.5 in review. (http://www.gamespot.com/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/reviews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-review-6198529/)
Thank god for news aggregators (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/180578/previews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning/), preserving your little embarrassments (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/197527/reviews/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-review/) for posterity.
And now I'm getting bored of this. (http://www.gamesradar.com/warhammer-online-age-of-reckoning-preview-brain-dump/)

*edited this a bit, cause I had a reading comprehension failure.

I guess what struck me about all the recent positive reviews of the hands on demo for ESO is that this game was hammered by negative press in May.  I, being an optimist, focused on the few writeups that sounded good, but there were easily 5 negative writeups for every 1 positive.  So, I was rather suprised to see that every single write-up of the hands on demo was positive.  And they had people there from sources that gave them shit reviews in May (Massively for example.)

So, yeah - you can talk about how everyone loved Warhammer in their reviews, but this is a POST Warcraft and Warhammer world - and anyone who reviews a new game has those metrics and experiences as measuring points, also.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on October 28, 2012, 02:22:20 PM
Except WAR came out well post-WoW, still got glowing press early on, only to end up being much worse than WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on October 29, 2012, 02:40:02 AM
Personally I'd rather read about the game rather than a meta-discussion of fanboydom.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on October 29, 2012, 03:34:23 AM
A guy from a website dedicated to TESO coverage does not have an "open mind" about whether it's good or not. He's already invested.

Which doesn't mean that he's wrong! I don't care. Nothing about this game is interesting to me right now, for good or ill, but I'd be thrilled if it ended up a good game. I like good games. But let's not act like a TESO fan site is somehow a neutral observer.

I get that, and I agree - but they had people there from Massively, MMORPG (yeah I know), MMO Reporter, MMO Attack, MMO Hut, MPOGD, RPG Gamer, RPG Fan, Strategy Informer, TenTon Hammer, ZAM - and a bunch of guilds and fan sites.  I've looked through most of the writeups from these people, and I can't find any negatives. 

I guess the point I was making in my previous post was not that the guys in that 2 hour podcast are objective, but that I don't think everyone who went to this event is likely to be reporting some positive lies about the game.

 :awesome_for_real:

You mean people like this guy here?

(http://i.imgur.com/kLHUo.png)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on October 29, 2012, 01:34:36 PM
I don't know when that image is going to get old, but I sure hope it's not any time soon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on October 29, 2012, 06:37:19 PM
At this point the game needs more "show" and less "tell"

If they want people to buy into the new improved combat, show it to us. Show us the HUD. Show us the interactions. Don't show me cinematics. Don't tease.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on October 30, 2012, 12:01:43 AM
So, yeah - you can talk about how everyone loved Warhammer in their reviews, but this is a POST Warcraft and Warhammer world - and anyone who reviews a new game has those metrics and experiences as measuring points, also.

Warhammer launched after Age of Conan.

You clearly don't understand the unholy combination of fanboyism, patronage, and the developers ability to hid shit they don't want seen that produced the delightful little Warhammer surprise.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on October 30, 2012, 08:20:17 AM
:(


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 08, 2012, 09:55:43 AM
New Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_Fr6VF_1LA

Quote
Check out our first video of The Elder Scrolls Online—a documentary-style introduction to the game, presented by members of The Elder Scrolls Online Development Team. This video covers the basics of ESO, including a first look at the game's Elder Scrolls-style combat system, massive PvP battles, Megaserver technology, exploration-based content, and much more.

This video is the first in a series of regular content and video updates on ElderScrollsOnline.com. Check the site regularly for more!

Not sure what I think of the graphics, they aren't bad but there's something about them.  They did an awful job showing off combat.  It's just mobs and pcs standing around swinging every 3 seconds.

We get a glimpse of "pvp" but it's a retarded setup of 100 people standing in a row and someone yelling charge.  Then everyone is just standing around doing nothing.  You do get a good look at animations and stuff which aren't great, but they aren't super bad either.  A lot of the spell/skill particle effects look terrible though.


In the end:
I like the world detail and graphics.
"Mega server" idea looks cool.
Combat Animations and effects look awful.
Combat itself looks like shit even if it's "action-y".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 08, 2012, 10:00:24 AM
Looks good to me. Seems clear it isn't Hero engine. See all those toons on screen at once? I like the graphics too.maybe it just isn't your taste, Draegan.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: veredus on November 08, 2012, 10:12:08 AM
I thought the graphics for the most part looked pretty good at least but the animations were a little painful to watch. Hopefully that gets fixed/changed. Combat didn't look all that exciting but not going to take too much away from just that video. I will say that video didn't really excite me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 08, 2012, 10:18:09 AM
I thought the animations were fine, but agree that some of the combat looked scripted. It is pre alpha, so to me it looks fantastic overall.I'm pretty impressed by all the things that are already done and fairly polished looking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 08, 2012, 11:19:25 AM
The animations didn't look that bad to me, nor did the graphics. The biggest problem I saw is that it looks just like every other Fantasy MMO currently on the market. There wasn't anything in that video to distinguish it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 08, 2012, 11:37:43 AM
Video is disappointing in all possible ways, mostly because not one single thing stands out from what is already available. That said, it's pre-alpha so I won't bash it based on guts feeling. Game could still be awesome regardless of what it looks like. But to be excited about that video, or the words they are using to sell it, definitely requires lots of blind faith in the franchise and a good amount of delusion-inspired enamorment.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 08, 2012, 11:40:54 AM
That combat is, not what it should have.

Its a less complicated AOC like system it seems. Only, no mobs try to dodge, move, or flank you, nor do they react to your hits at all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 08, 2012, 12:32:04 PM
I want to see more about the developed combat and the pvp. The PvE is going to be the same shit as everything else, and if that's their focus they are doomed.

The PvP has a shot if it's based on a combat system that's more on the typical Elder Scrolls system, and not just target-swing-block.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 08, 2012, 12:43:17 PM
All in all the introduction video reminded me of AoC. The $1k question is whether  it's the "Tortage-experience" or what came after it...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 08, 2012, 01:55:14 PM
The PvE is going to be the same shit as everything else

It Really, Really does not have to be.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 08, 2012, 02:02:14 PM
The PvE is going to be the same shit as everything else

It Really, Really does not have to be.

So instead of dungeons and raiding it could be...<insert what here>?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 08, 2012, 02:11:56 PM
It is going to be dungeons and raiding, but it sounds like both WOW models and GW2 models.  I thought I heard of something that is going to be some instance you can join with a shit ton of people to kill bad guys.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 08, 2012, 02:20:30 PM
I'm more interested in whether they can make a good pvp metagame (and actually have hundred players on screen without significant problems). While GW2 fills my pvp-craving at the moment, it does suffer from "culling" (and some other less important problems) and if ESO launches next year (or relatively soon anyway) it might be the next mmo for me (if it delivers on large-scale pvp).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 08, 2012, 02:54:40 PM
The PvE is going to be the same shit as everything else

It Really, Really does not have to be.

So instead of dungeons and raiding it could be...<insert what here>?

More like its namesakes? Its the combat I have issue with, is a click click combat, but its nothing like the reactions you get from the other titles. They just stand there, cycling animations. If mobs flanked, blocked, reacted to hits, ETC...

What this seems to be is standard MMO mobs and behavior with a "actiony" combat. Net result: I stand here and click at him,. May as well put the TAB target back in. DDO does what was shown in that video better, but that's still not like this series should be. Hell, Mortal online does this better.

It feels like they are scared to go beyond standard MMO combat, but will put a sheen over it so you think its marginally different. Not sure if its because they think MMO players EXPECT dumb, stand around AI or what....

Don't say skyrim combat can't be done. Because it can.

Hell: http://www.chivalrythegame.com/

Chivalry: Medieval Warfare Launch Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JcNuz63JbKc&list=PLBE562F8499B358C0)


While not as complicated as Mount and Blade, still really visceral combat that is more in line with the The Elder Scrolls line. That alone will make killing a mob way more fun than ever increasing numbers and more and more rats that are stupid to fight. You do not need fifty billion kill quests when you have a good combat system that makes each fight interesting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 08, 2012, 07:52:55 PM
Eh, I dunno.  I think if you really didn't see something in that video that makes you at least a bit excited, you need to ask yourself if you even like MMOs or ES anymore.  Maybe you outgrew them.  Maybe you need a break.  I skipped the whole WOW seen (thank you DAOC addiction) and have been playing DDO and other, newer games very lightly over the last few years, and at this point I'm ready to sink myself into a nice new AAA MMO.

You guys who are saying this video looks 'terrible' are in a tiny minority from what I've seen on other sites.  Bloodworth - your predictions about mobs just standing there and not doing anything like flanking or using abilities is complete opposite to all the play test reviews that are out there.  I agree the video made it seem like this, but I'm hoping it was just a limitation of the POV, and the fact that they only showed a few seconds worth of each fight.  You should read a few, or at least listen to a few (there are podcasts and youtube vids) if you can't be bothered to read them.

I thought it looked awesome.  I'm excited for many things:

1. Character advancement and diversification via many pathways: a. leveling where assign points to magicka, stamina or health b. level skills gained through weapon choice, class, armor choice, stat assignment c. perks (lycanthropy and vampirism confirmed!), and, d.  rvr renown.

2. Beautiful graphics and smooth animations - did you see them jumping into the lake?  The world graphics look just as good or better than ES titles.  Pre-alpha, without all the options on, I'm sure.  LOL - if you say this game looks like crap, you either need to download a higher res version of the video, or you just cannot be pleased.  For a game that allows hundreds of characters on screen, they looked pretty damn good.

3. RVR done right - 3 factions, destructible environments, capturable points of interest like keeps, towers, trade stations, villages.

4. RVR zone that IS an adventure zone complete with pve quests, dungeons, and towns.  I can't fucking wait to hunt some damn elves (of course I'm playing an orc!) down while they try to farm x mob for x quest.

5. No overt quest hubs!  The UI with the POI compass look awesome.

6. Megaserver - need I say more?  I think 50% of WAR's crash and burn was due to too many servers during the opening rush.  Ghosttowns are no fun.  The tech for the megaserver sounds great; they'll be able to flag zones with variable player caps so that deserted castles seem deserted and towns seem bustling.  You'll meet people with your preferences and you'll always be with your friends.

7. Looser trinity, but still there - if you are a fighter and you spend some time learning to use that heal staff, you can fill in for a healer in a pinch for adventuring or pvp.  No, you can never be as good as a real healer, but it will be damn nice to not have annoying ass LFM up for 2 hours while you try to build the perfect group.

8. Clean engine with a clean server code from the ground up built for this game.  Goodbye SWTOR and DDO with your janky ass kludged on code.

Ahh, I can go on and on, but let me be the first (on these forums) to say that I've seen and heard enough to predict this game is going to be great.  You can all mark this post for posterity.

Cheer up, Bloodworth - you seem so very disgruntled.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 08, 2012, 07:57:11 PM
Game is pretty. Concerned about the animations, and I still think the faction split is dumb.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Goreschach on November 08, 2012, 08:20:41 PM

Ahh, I can go on and on, but let me be the first (on these forums) to say that I've seen and heard enough to predict this game is going to be great.  You can all mark this post for posterity.


 :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 08, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
"Once you hit level 50, that's when the game really opens up."

 :facepalm:

It looks nifty.  I wish I could just set it to be balanced solo and play it all alone. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 08, 2012, 10:25:48 PM
"Once you hit level 50, that's when the game really opens up."

 :facepalm:

It looks nifty.  I wish I could just set it to be balanced solo and play it all alone. 

At least their idea of end game is different from SWTOR - roll alts til you go crazy.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 09, 2012, 02:28:44 AM
Eh, I dunno.  I think if you really didn't see something in that video that makes you at least a bit excited, you need to ask yourself if you even like MMOs or ES anymore. 

 :oh_i_see:

Seriously. Stop. You HAVE to know better than post that crap.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 09, 2012, 08:43:53 AM
He's been pimping the game since the beginning. I doubt he would post anything else.

The game is going to hinge on the combat. They can literally take all the graphic videos, the feature videos, and stuff them all up their asses over at Zenimax. Show me combat. Show much buckets of combat. Show me the exact HUD and GUI options I'll have, including my spellcasting, targetting, AI, and dealing with lag.

Literally nothing else will sell this game unless the combat is different and featured. If it's not, I'll ignore it until well after release, and I'll watch the inevitable youtube videos. And you don't want that Zenimax. You don't want that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 09, 2012, 09:00:06 AM
You can all mark this post for posterity.

Post marked.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 09, 2012, 09:13:55 AM
Ahh, I can go on and on, but let me be the first (on these forums) to say that I've seen and heard enough to predict this game is going to be great.  You can all mark this post for posterity.
One of my relatives is pretty much gay for The Elder Scrolls series; we're talking hundreds of hours into all of them Arena/Daggerfall included. Unabashed, complete fanboy.

He's extremely pessimistic about this game. Granted most of his complaints are lore related, but he said he'll be pissed if this feels like anything but a TES game and it's not looking great so far.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on November 09, 2012, 09:16:42 AM
It's a lot better looking than that teaser or whatever it was called they released earlier.  It's pretty enough I'll have to buy it just to explore and look around but I'm sure the systems will be terrible and I'll unsubscribe as soon as I'm max level.  Also, bugs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 09, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
Eh, I dunno.  I think if you really didn't see something in that video that makes you at least a bit excited, you need to ask yourself if you even like MMOs or ES anymore. 

 :oh_i_see:

Seriously. Stop. You HAVE to know better than post that crap.

Well, he is right in my case. I Can no longer stand MMO combat, nor, as an effect, MMO questing. I have been burned out for quite a while, and my post, and disappointment show this.

A True Elder Scrolls Online would be my saviour. This is not it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2012, 09:52:34 AM
I thought it looked awesome.  I'm excited for many things:

1. Character advancement and diversification via many pathways: a. leveling where assign points to magicka, stamina or health b. level skills gained through weapon choice, class, armor choice, stat assignment c. perks (lycanthropy and vampirism confirmed!), and, d.  rvr renown.

2. Beautiful graphics and smooth animations - did you see them jumping into the lake?  The world graphics look just as good or better than ES titles.  Pre-alpha, without all the options on, I'm sure.  LOL - if you say this game looks like crap, you either need to download a higher res version of the video, or you just cannot be pleased.  For a game that allows hundreds of characters on screen, they looked pretty damn good.

3. RVR done right - 3 factions, destructible environments, capturable points of interest like keeps, towers, trade stations, villages.

4. RVR zone that IS an adventure zone complete with pve quests, dungeons, and towns.  I can't fucking wait to hunt some damn elves (of course I'm playing an orc!) down while they try to farm x mob for x quest.

5. No overt quest hubs!  The UI with the POI compass look awesome.

6. Megaserver - need I say more?  I think 50% of WAR's crash and burn was due to too many servers during the opening rush.  Ghosttowns are no fun.  The tech for the megaserver sounds great; they'll be able to flag zones with variable player caps so that deserted castles seem deserted and towns seem bustling.  You'll meet people with your preferences and you'll always be with your friends.

7. Looser trinity, but still there - if you are a fighter and you spend some time learning to use that heal staff, you can fill in for a healer in a pinch for adventuring or pvp.  No, you can never be as good as a real healer, but it will be damn nice to not have annoying ass LFM up for 2 hours while you try to build the perfect group.

8. Clean engine with a clean server code from the ground up built for this game.  Goodbye SWTOR and DDO with your janky ass kludged on code.

Ahh, I can go on and on, but let me be the first (on these forums) to say that I've seen and heard enough to predict this game is going to be great.  You can all mark this post for posterity.

Cheer up, Bloodworth - you seem so very disgruntled.


Holy shit dude.

You are just giving them a HUGE HUGE HUGE benefit of the doubt.  Clean engine? PVP done right? 100s of toons on the screen at once?  I will believe all of that when the game is released, not a moment before.  Fuck dude, you really need to be objective here.

Also, based on that video, the combat animations and demo were horrific because it's gonna be 2013 when this is released, not 2008.  All I saw were dude standing still swinging at each other every 2 seconds.

Hopefully their leveling thing is cool, but it's not groundbreaking or anything.  I really can't say if it's good or bad until I see how they balance shit and set up character development with details.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2012, 09:54:41 AM
He's been pimping the game since the beginning. I doubt he would post anything else.

The game is going to hinge on the combat. They can literally take all the graphic videos, the feature videos, and stuff them all up their asses over at Zenimax. Show me combat. Show much buckets of combat. Show me the exact HUD and GUI options I'll have, including my spellcasting, targetting, AI, and dealing with lag.

Literally nothing else will sell this game unless the combat is different and featured. If it's not, I'll ignore it until well after release, and I'll watch the inevitable youtube videos. And you don't want that Zenimax. You don't want that.

This all day long.  I don't need scripted shitty videos showing "oh look we recreated braveheart in our game!".  Show me the game as it's being played.  I really hate it when studios turn off the UI or whatever and show 6 people running through a forest or standing around a boss mob swinging randomly for 4 seconds.  Gah.  It's fine for commercials not an introduction video.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Modern Angel on November 09, 2012, 10:44:15 AM
It's like the preceding 15 years of hype over substance MMO marketing didn't exist. That's like the platonic ideal of a fanboy post. Like, shit, maybe it is great, but sucking off the studio over a video (even a better video) like that is annoying.

Also, I'm over standard MMO combat. I fired up the Rift free account activation preview thingy. I lasted 10 minutes, and I like Rift. I kept trying to cast on the move like in GW2 or dodge. I was immediately given thirty abilities, which I'd forgotten what they do. I headed up to the shipwrecked queen to get things going via quest. Looked pretty cool. She said thanks... and then offered me a daily. I turned it off.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 09, 2012, 11:10:02 AM
This is petty, but I really dislike that Todd Howard gave an interview around Skyrim's launch that roughly said TES is a single-player world, only to announce six months later that there's been an MMO in dev for a long time.  I realize he couldn't divulge information on the title yet, but it just smacks me as shitty to lie directly to the interviewer and audience.  He could have said something akin to "We've considered it, but nothing definite".  But instead he outright lied about it. 

This might turn out to be a great game, I don't know.  But the series feels tainted now that they want to add the rest of the gaming "community" into my single player game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 09, 2012, 11:44:49 AM
6. Megaserver - need I say more?  I think 50% of WAR's crash and burn was due to too many servers during the opening rush.  Ghosttowns are no fun.  The tech for the megaserver sounds great; they'll be able to flag zones with variable player caps so that deserted castles seem deserted and towns seem bustling.  You'll meet people with your preferences and you'll always be with your friends.

That wasn't even remotely what WAR's problems stemmed from, but we have a whole forum where that discussion has taken place.

You're gushing over this video is... premature.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2012, 12:05:04 PM
6. Megaserver - need I say more?  I think 50% of WAR's crash and burn was due to too many servers during the opening rush.  Ghosttowns are no fun.  The tech for the megaserver sounds great; they'll be able to flag zones with variable player caps so that deserted castles seem deserted and towns seem bustling.  You'll meet people with your preferences and you'll always be with your friends.

That wasn't even remotely what WAR's problems stemmed from, but we have a whole forum where that discussion has taken place.

You're gushing over this video is... premature.

I think that is the nicest thing you've ever said.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 09, 2012, 12:09:35 PM
I had to try really hard not to unleash the nerdrage since the kid is new and maybe doesn't understand what he's doing. Maybe one day he'll post an opinion in a thread totally unrelated to a game he has built an altar for in a hidden sub-basement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 09, 2012, 12:23:02 PM
After his last post you think it's really hidden?  It's probably in his front lawn.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on November 09, 2012, 01:07:06 PM
Whatever, it's refreshing to occasionally see someone popping boners over an alpha trailer of an MMO. I'm sure we all remember when we used to be that optimistic and borderline naive prior to MMO releases. I even found myself tapping into the giddy feelings in the first minute or so of the trailer. Then, slowly, I realized many aspects just didn't seem right.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on November 09, 2012, 02:50:05 PM
People really need to incorporate a Build From Nothing attitude towards MMO's — trust absofuckinglutely nothing and never 'sign in' on an MMO until you have at least seen unedited gameplay video from a release functional build. PvP especially, if that and RvR are an intended draw.

If this game turns out to be an actually good MMO i'll be so surprised i'll eat a hat for you guys. Not as big a hat as I literally signed an agreement to eat if MNS's The Last Airbender turned out to not be terrible, but i'll still eat something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 09, 2012, 03:17:45 PM
You guys who are saying this video looks 'terrible' are in a tiny minority from what I've seen on other sites.  Bloodworth - your predictions about mobs just standing there and not doing anything like flanking or using abilities is complete opposite to all the play test reviews that are out there.  I agree the video made it seem like this, but I'm hoping it was just a limitation of the POV, and the fact that they only showed a few seconds worth of each fight.  You should read a few, or at least listen to a few (there are podcasts and youtube vids) if you can't be bothered to read them.

Or you could trust the video you just watched rather than the words of some random starfucking neckbeard on the internet.  When your promotional materials make the safety dance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmArX8GvHLo) look like highly mobile combat you have a problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 09, 2012, 04:08:03 PM
Make an MMO with daggerfall's randomness (or I might be just nostalgic and remember it totally wrong) where the parts of the world are re-seeded(?) every now and then and I'd be there in a flash. Otherwise I have to say pve in MMOs holds little interest to me any more as single-player games usually offer something better in that arena...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 09, 2012, 07:30:20 PM
I had to try really hard not to unleash the nerdrage since the kid is new and maybe doesn't understand what he's doing. Maybe one day he'll post an opinion in a thread totally unrelated to a game he has built an altar for in a hidden sub-basement.

I contemplated making some sort of long post describing how I'm not a kid, and I've seen this and that, and blah blah blah.  I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I really don't give enough of a shit.  Nor do you guys give a shit about all that.  So, whatever.  This forum apparently isn't a good place to come and try to share some excitement about an upcoming title anymore.  No worries - there are plenty of places for that.  Something like 10? years ago I started lurking here and would see some interesting conversations, and even see a dev post now and then.  Really isn't much happening here anymore, and I dunno, was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

Good luck, champs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on November 09, 2012, 07:39:49 PM
We eat our young here :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on November 09, 2012, 07:57:46 PM
If you like a game don't come here to talk about it.  If you want to be pessimistic or trash it, then you are in the right place.   :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 09, 2012, 08:24:35 PM
Yeah the Secret World and Torchlight and never got any love here recently  :oh_i_see:

We're not beyond people liking a game. We get ancy when we see people SHILLING for a game when we have next to no actual information beyond developer promises and scripted videos.

Look, I'm all for somebody liking a game. I irrationally love Total War games. For some reason I still play WoW even though dailyfest bugs me. But this game has a very serious question mark I can't reconcile in my head to get on board. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but here's my main issue: From what we know the game has been in development for 5 years, and it's slated to release next year, but up until recently they were talking about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT COMBAT SYSTEM.

Now, I'm not saying a switch away from what I was originally hearing as a standard tab-target bullshit combat system isn't a positive move. What concerns me is that they A - didn't know that TES players would balk at that bullshit, and B - they are changing it this late in the game. I mean, changing combat in an RPG game isn't a small task. You've overhauling the way the game operates at a baseline level. If this is supposed to release in a year, how much time have they now scrapped because their combat previously was ass?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on November 09, 2012, 08:57:12 PM
One of the reasons why I like this forum is because the extreme ends of the scale (from rabid fanboy to obsessive hater) are less likely to be tolerated than at other places. I trust the collective response from people on f13 over "actual" reviews any day of the week. Except maybe Tuesdays.

Edit: Crap. This makes me an f13 fanboy, doesn't it...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 09, 2012, 08:59:06 PM
I had to try really hard not to unleash the nerdrage since the kid is new and maybe doesn't understand what he's doing. Maybe one day he'll post an opinion in a thread totally unrelated to a game he has built an altar for in a hidden sub-basement.

I contemplated making some sort of long post describing how I'm not a kid, and I've seen this and that, and blah blah blah.  I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I really don't give enough of a shit.  Nor do you guys give a shit about all that.  So, whatever.  This forum apparently isn't a good place to come and try to share some excitement about an upcoming title anymore.  No worries - there are plenty of places for that.  Something like 10? years ago I started lurking here and would see some interesting conversations, and even see a dev post now and then.  Really isn't much happening here anymore, and I dunno, was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

Good luck, champs.
You have no idea how badly I want to like a TES MMO. It's a unique property that if done right would make an awesome MMO. But we're up to some ungodly number of shitty, shitty big-IP AAA mmos at this point and there have been PLENTY of us who have drank the koolaid on at least one game. You're talking to an asshole who recently resubbed to WoW.

Here's the process we've seen with this shit every time:

1. Rumors surface of a big IP AAA MMO done by some studio that has a good enough track record that people are curious.
2. As info trickles in fanboys get hardons, everyone speculates, IS THE HOLY TRINITY REALLY GONE THIS TIME? MAN I HOPE THE PVP IS LIKE DAOC!!
3. Breathless sorta-gameplay video of early beta/alpha product with devs talking over it about how they're really gonna do it right this time and how excited they are.
4. Fan news site opens.
5. Beta; game at best looks promising if they fix XYZ.
6. Game comes out, XYZ aren't fixed.
7. XYZ are never fixed, or fixed so slowly people get frustrated. Some big technical issues; servers, client, website, whatever.
8. Game does not immediately accrue WoW's numbers, publisher shitcans 3/4ths of the staff. Every big name creative head leaves.
9. Game stagnates, loses subs, everyone but dedicated fans move on.
10. F2P/Maintenance Mode.

And thus the cycle begins again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 09, 2012, 09:13:49 PM
If you like a game don't come here to talk about it.  If you want to be pessimistic or trash it, then you are in the right place.   :oh_i_see:

There's plenty of games getting positive feedback around here, and I personally have no problem with people championing products which everybody else hates (though that doesn't mean I won't argue with them).

Where it gets stupid is when you say something like "if this trailer didn't get you excited, then there's something wrong with you."  That's when we leave the realm of discussion and move firmly into ad hominem fanboyism.  There are valid reasons for not liking anything, if you can't see that, you're not ready to have a discussion about it.  I don't mind the guy coming in and posting info about the game, I mind him acting all shocked that people are disagreeing with him.  I read boards like these for discussions, for disagreements, not to have the privilege of validating someone's opinion.

I don't hate TES:O.  I don't think it looks awesome, either.  It could go either way.  It's encouraging that they are responding to feedback, though like others have posted, I'd need some more solid feedback on the core systems before I start giving a shit about things like quest hubs and server details.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 09, 2012, 10:06:21 PM

Being too optimistic or pessimistic over a game still under NDA is pretty pointless, but it's fun watching for signs of which way it's going.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on November 10, 2012, 12:16:00 AM

Being too optimistic or pessimistic over a game still under NDA is pretty pointless, but it's fun watching for signs of which way it's going.


Nah, you can get a lot of thin-slicing material out of promo materials. Eventually you just sort of get a feel for when a game's production is radiating failvibes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 10, 2012, 01:10:26 AM
I contemplated making some sort of long post describing how I'm not a kid, and I've seen this and that, and blah blah blah.  I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I really don't give enough of a shit.  Nor do you guys give a shit about all that.  So, whatever.  This forum apparently isn't a good place to come and try to share some excitement about an upcoming title anymore.  No worries - there are plenty of places for that.  Something like 10? years ago I started lurking here and would see some interesting conversations, and even see a dev post now and then.  Really isn't much happening here anymore, and I dunno, was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

Good luck, champs.
If you want to fanboy over a game that's released (or in an open beta that you can actually play), go ahead. You'll find people who hate it, but you'll probably find that some of us like it. However, you're acting exactly like Curt was over Reckoning: posting almost exclusively in one thread, pimping a game that's very far away based on little more than scripted video, interviews, and a love for a guy who made your favorite game way back whenever ago. It almost seems like you're working for Zenimax trying to artificially generate buzz, and on MMORPG.com or the VNboards that shit might fly.

However, here at f13 as Fabricated illustrated we've seen it all; the MMO scene has been promising gold and delivering shit for so long that most of us don't get excited over pointless fluff videos or promises of fetuspults. Give us some real, in game footage and we'll get excited. Give us a nice, long beta with no NDA and access to more than the first 20 levels and we'll give a shit. If TESO still looks good, we'll get a subforum going, <Bat Country> created and start posting character names and "What went wrong" threads. :why_so_serious: But until then, there's no point getting our collective hopes up for Disappointing MMO Launch N.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 10, 2012, 04:05:39 AM
However, you're acting exactly like Curt was over Reckoning: posting almost exclusively in one thread, pimping a game that's very far away based on little more than scripted video, interviews, and a love for a guy who made your favorite game way back whenever ago. It almost seems like you're working for Zenimax trying to artificially generate buzz, and on MMORPG.com or the VNboards that shit might fly.

Hey, atleast Zenimax has shown us alot more than Curt's 38 Studios ever did about their upcoming MMO  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 10, 2012, 06:13:23 AM
Okay, by popular demand, I will take my optimism and F off.  I'll refrain from posting in here, until a lot more info is available, and I'll either come back to:

A: Say, "I told you so."

-or-

B: Say, "You guys were so right, can't believe I am such a sap."

Cheers, and have fun with your grumpy, negative lives, you bunch of losers.


I contemplated making some sort of long post describing how I'm not a kid, and I've seen this and that, and blah blah blah.  I thought about it for a few minutes and decided I really don't give enough of a shit.  Nor do you guys give a shit about all that.  So, whatever.  This forum apparently isn't a good place to come and try to share some excitement about an upcoming title anymore.  No worries - there are plenty of places for that.  Something like 10? years ago I started lurking here and would see some interesting conversations, and even see a dev post now and then.  Really isn't much happening here anymore, and I dunno, was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

Good luck, champs.

 :oh_i_see:

Take this as an advice from a fellow "optimist" (which I am not, but eh..)

I'm the one around here usually liking games "too much" and being made fun of because of that. f13 is not gonna change and neither am I. We jab at each other all the time and I try (sometimes failing) not to turn my excitement into blatant advertising cause that's when it gets ridiculous. Not a big deal unless you stretch it too far and shill for a game that we haven't seen shit of 1 year before it's released. Your blind endorsement is juvenile, no matter how old you are, and since I am probably the only other one here who occasionally suffers of such a thing I understand you, I know where it's coming from, but I still suggest you to try and tone it down because eventually if you look and sound ridiculous maybe it's time to get perspective, instead of telling everyone else that they clearly don't understand.

So stop being a baby. If you want to desperately and loudly hope for some sort of double-Christmas keep doing so, but take the deserved flak and stop acting like everyone is mean to the new kid. It's nothing like that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 10, 2012, 07:24:47 AM
Falconeer,

You make a very good point.  A few months go by, some new vids and preview articles get released, and I think I can come here and talk about actual features with people.  Instead, when I list features I think sound good, I get shit on.  When people talk about the game radiating "failvibes" they get high fived.

I think it would be prudent for me a step back for a few months again, and we'll see how things are going.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 10, 2012, 08:26:22 AM
I'll put it this way. I'm interested in where they are headed. The idea of combat that isn't a tab-target ripoff is a good idea.

But I want to see it. And until I see it, lists of features do nothing for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 10, 2012, 09:37:11 AM
I'm the one around here usually liking games "too much" and being made fun of because of that. f13 is not gonna change and neither am I.
Don't be so hard on yourself, Falc.  You may unjustifiably love a game, but you know it's just your opinion, not the end-all-be-all for everyone else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: climbjtree on November 10, 2012, 11:38:53 AM
Pardon my off topic intrusion, but ol' blackwulf is the only person I've seen insert two spaces after a period since I learned to type in middle school.

...

Carry on.

edit: Uh, and of course Lantyssa. Immediately after I posted this post.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 10, 2012, 12:51:46 PM
So blackwulf is Lantyssa's gimmick account?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 10, 2012, 12:54:38 PM
I'll put it this way. I'm interested in where they are headed. The idea of combat that isn't a tab-target ripoff is a good idea.

What worries me is that when I heard it described, it sounded like a kludged together mask over a tab target system, rather than any kind of fundamental change in the mechanics.   There was still tab tageting, it wasn't some free-aiming collision check thing like AoC or [insert action game], it was just that you were in mouselook by default and automatically targeting whatever was under your cursor when you clicked the ability.   And you still had the ability to "lock" in targets.   And I'd be really surprised if there wasn't also a button to cycle targets, though I didn't see that explicitly stated.   Which makes the whole thing seem to me like putting cat ears on a dog when you've just heard that nobody wants to buy a dog.

I suppose it would look more open, and might even feel more open, but in any marginally challenging context, the ability to lock targets is going to obviate the entire aiming mechanic.   It's one of those systems whose sole purpose is to mask another system, so 95% of it's effectiveness is going to be how it deals with the limitations of that underlying system.   How does it handle attacks against no target, or when the target wanders in front of the fireball halfway through it's travel path, or against a fast moving target at range, how does it deal with cover, that kind of thing is going to determine how well this works, for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 10, 2012, 01:27:24 PM
And Kail, apparently.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 10, 2012, 01:32:45 PM
Pfft, no.   Count again, you posers, I'm TRIPLE SPACING this shit.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on November 10, 2012, 03:01:22 PM
Double spacers unite!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 10, 2012, 03:06:08 PM
Falconeer,

You make a very good point.  A few months go by, some new vids and preview articles get released, and I think I can come here and talk about actual features with people.  Instead, when I list features I think sound good, I get shit on.  When people talk about the game radiating "failvibes" they get high fived.

I think it would be prudent for me a step back for a few months again, and we'll see how things are going.

My advice would just be participate in the community instead of just the one thread, and everyone will put up with this stuff more. Probably.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 10, 2012, 04:27:59 PM
Not if it's not backed up by anything.  See our reaction to Bloodworth after he latches on to a game. ;D


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Evildrider on November 10, 2012, 04:56:16 PM
Falconeer,

You make a very good point.  A few months go by, some new vids and preview articles get released, and I think I can come here and talk about actual features with people.  Instead, when I list features I think sound good, I get shit on.  When people talk about the game radiating "failvibes" they get high fived.

I think it would be prudent for me a step back for a few months again, and we'll see how things are going.

My advice would just be participate in the community instead of just the one thread, and everyone will put up with this stuff more. Probably.

Don't listen to Ingmar, it's all a trap!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 10, 2012, 11:38:14 PM
Joining the f13 Blood Bowl league may also help. Or not.  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on November 11, 2012, 12:12:35 AM
Elder Scrolls Online, as marketed so far, should not in the least be used as any measure of f13 being a bunch of pessimistic grouches — the game legitimately is a perfect example of something that rightfully provokes a bad gut feeling and poor confidence in industry types and mmo veterans alike


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 11, 2012, 04:22:52 AM
Joining the f13 Blood Bowl league may also help. Or not.  :why_so_serious:

A few games of blood bowl with some bad luck and you'll start to feel it  :drill:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 11, 2012, 06:51:25 AM
Elder Scrolls Online, as marketed so far, should not in the least be used as any measure of f13 being a bunch of pessimistic grouches — the game legitimately is a perfect example of something that rightfully provokes a bad gut feeling and poor confidence in industry types and mmo veterans alike

If this was 2007-ish and TESO was appearing at it is, then we'd probably not be thinking this way either. But I think that TESO has missed the MMO boat by about 5 years.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rattran on November 11, 2012, 07:45:04 AM
It's never too late to catch the MMO Failboat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Azazel on November 12, 2012, 01:21:33 AM
Not if it's not backed up by anything.  See our reaction to Bloodworth after he latches on to a game. ;D

The difference is, we love Bloodworth.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 12, 2012, 02:27:18 AM
...From what we know the game has been in development for 5 years, and it's slated to release next year, but up until recently they were talking about an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT COMBAT SYSTEM.

Now, I'm not saying a switch away from what I was originally hearing as a standard tab-target bullshit combat system isn't a positive move. What concerns me is that they A - didn't know that TES players would balk at that bullshit, and B - they are changing it this late in the game. I mean, changing combat in an RPG game isn't a small task. You've overhauling the way the game operates at a baseline level. If this is supposed to release in a year, how much time have they now scrapped because their combat previously was ass?

You might be overestimating the complexity here a tad.  It wouldn't take much to turn something like Cone of Cold in WoW into a Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim style melee attack (on keyboard/mouse input run a dummy CoC type attack, compare distance and heading of everything in the cone's arc to get a single most likely target, do a basic attack on that target).  In WoW terms player-controlled blocking is simply periodically checking for an input state, then modifying block chance (someone wrote a mod that does exactly this for Morrowind via Morrowind Script Extender).

Not to say that the argument doesn't have merit, or that the various and sundry other reasons to be suspicious of this game don't exist, but generating art assets is supposed to be the major bottleneck anyways.

It's never too late to catch the MMO Failboat.

The failboat never sets sail, only sinks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 12, 2012, 03:08:20 AM
I'd be more excited about this if they were doing an all-PvE MMO.  The fact that they're putting any sort of PvP into it means all kinds of stupid balancing shit is going to take place.  Essentially, the whole character gen will have to be re-envisioned. 

So we have proven single-player studio doing their first MMO and trying to be AAA with a metric fuckton of money.  This has all the hallmarks of a major disaster.  Not to mention that they simply won't be able to create a world big enough in their MMO to make Tamriel look even mildly plausible.

I want to get my hopes up and love this idea, but just no.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 12, 2012, 07:40:48 AM
So we have proven single-player studio doing their first MMO and trying to be AAA with a metric fuckton of money.  This has all the hallmarks of a major disaster.  Not to mention that they simply won't be able to create a world big enough in their MMO to make Tamriel look even mildly plausible.

Bethesda isn't making it.  Zenimax (the parent company of Bethesda) built a new studio for this game and hired industry vets.  Matt Firor is heading it up, along with other pre-WAR Mythic employees, some vets from UO, and dozens of other experienced MMO people.  Really, according to interviews, the only thing Bethesda has to do with this game is that they have had input on the use of lore.
I think this is an interesting point, because I think it's kind of the opposite of what Bioware did with SWTOR - they created the game in house, and consulted with MMO vets.  Or am I wrong?

With regard to your second point - I would be tempted to agree, but, unless they are lying, each province is as big as one of the single player TES games.

And, yes, guys - I realize it is possible they are lying about this stuff, and I want to see some more vids too!

Also, I can't break that old two spaces after a period habit that my typing instructor drilled into me.  It just happens.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 12, 2012, 07:52:38 AM
Past MMO dev isn't a boon at this point, it's a handicap. I'm a fan of the genre and some of the least-liked games and even *I* can admit that.

The games that were popular in their heyday were popular because there were no alternatives.  You've seen better games from people with no experience and no expectations of what the game should and shouldn't do at this point.   From a game system standpoint, give me new blood.

The only guys who should be getting props WRT past experience are the tech guys; and only if their systems weren't going to shit on launch or shortly thereafter.


Adding PVP in to the mix makes this a non-starter. RPGs aren't the vehicle for successful PVP that's fun for all parties. Never have been and it's not likely they ever will be.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 12, 2012, 08:16:41 AM
That's an interesting way of looking at things.  I agree that I wouldn't trust anything from some industry vets. *cough* Mark Jacobs.  If you think about it, some of the biggest letdowns in the last decade have been made by guys who were responsible for our favorite games.  Vangaurd, Tabula Rasa, pretty much anything by SOE, WAR.  I could go on.

That said, does that mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Keep in mind that this game has been in development a long time.  Six or so years.  Where you willing to write off experienced devs in 2006?  Most of the huge failures in recent memory had nothing to do with the guys working on ESO.

I think if you consider other industries, you'd agree that usually experience is a good thing.  Now, I'll be clear, there is no excuse for repeating mistakes made by other game studios.  If they haven't had their ears to the ground in recent years and made sure they aren't doing something stupid, I'll be right there with the rest of the peasants holding pitchforks...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ironwood on November 12, 2012, 08:40:48 AM
The baby's dead, Burke.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on November 12, 2012, 09:00:43 AM
Where you willing to write off experienced devs in 2006?

If the game's development started in 2006 and finished in 2008 or 2009? Not at all.

Six years is an eternity  in game development, even for MMOs which tend to take longer than the average game to make. After six years I imagine the project leads have either been so myopic that the game will launch out of date with a bunch of systems people thought antiquated three to five years ago, or it'll have gotten a late-stage "let's be all things to everybody" pass to try and cast a wider net over the potential audience, which just ends up with a bunch of three-quarters-baked systems that'll never quite get finished.

I imagine the game can still do well, somehow, but there is just so much stacked against it: the excruciatingly long dev time, the backwards-looking project leads hoping to recapture past glories, the now-utterly hostile market (I will be stunned if the game doesn't launch with a $15/mo subscription), the wholly inappropriate license for the setting... That's not even going into the potential land mines of individual game systems, especially the open-world PvP area with game-wide consequences relating to its control, which will be an albatross around this game's neck.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 12, 2012, 09:36:18 AM
I think this is an interesting point, because I think it's kind of the opposite of what Bioware did with SWTOR - they created the game in house, and consulted with MMO vets.  Or am I wrong?
It's exactly what they did with SWToR.

Bioware Edmonton just did the writing and consulting initially.  They eventually brought in people, but it was mostly run by MMO industry vets at a new studio.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 12, 2012, 09:52:46 AM
I imagine the game can still do well, somehow, but there is just so much stacked against it: the excruciatingly long dev time, the backwards-looking project leads hoping to recapture past glories, the now-utterly hostile market (I will be stunned if the game doesn't launch with a $15/mo subscription), the wholly inappropriate license for the setting... That's not even going into the potential land mines of individual game systems, especially the open-world PvP area with game-wide consequences relating to its control, which will be an albatross around this game's neck.

Yeah, when you lay it out like that, it does sound grim!  Here's hoping they have a lot more to show us...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 12, 2012, 10:02:57 AM
That said, does that mean you should throw the baby out with the bathwater?  Keep in mind that this game has been in development a long time.  Six or so years.  Where you willing to write off experienced devs in 2006?  Most of the huge failures in recent memory had nothing to do with the guys working on ESO.

I think if you consider other industries, you'd agree that usually experience is a good thing.  Now, I'll be clear, there is no excuse for repeating mistakes made by other game studios.  If they haven't had their ears to the ground in recent years and made sure they aren't doing something stupid, I'll be right there with the rest of the peasants holding pitchforks...

I was and did write-off a number of "vets" in 2006.  Warhammer only got me because of the focused testing hiding the underlayer of crap.  The vets from UO, COH, EQ, AC, FFXI and SWG? I totally wrote them off after I saw the number of, "Oh that's an error" and "outlier, ignore it" or "just a bunch of Blizzard fanboys" comments thrown at WoW by the lot of them.   They weren't willing to change or learn from a game that ate their old paradigm for lunch.  They were dinosaurs then and moreso now.

Experience is a good thing only so long as you don't let it hinder growth.  Games are creative as well as technical with an iterative evolutionary process.  You learn from the past and cherry pick the parts you like.  Experience should tell you what didn't work and what you need to fix in the next iteration. That doesn't happen when you take the attitude of, "I was the hot shit before, clearly people want more of the same hot shit!"   Even Blizzard fell victim to this mentality and it has cost them nearly their entire audience because of it and their rep has taken hits on the SP and MMO front I don't think they'll recover from.

The other problem is No MMO dev has learned you can't be everything to everyone, and they've all suffered for it.  Sometimes you just have to say, "Sorry, we're not focused on your playstyle."  Much like I don't go to Steak 'n Shake for pancakes (which they're advertising the hell out of so I mention it.)  I don't go to an excellent PVE MMO for PVP.   Trying only makes things awful for everyone.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 12, 2012, 10:06:32 AM
If the words "tab-target" "lock-on target" or "click target" make an appearance, this game will be DOA. Not once has anyone who ever played a TES game had to "target" anything. They'll lose their audience then and there.

That being said, my main hope is that they revamp the system enough to do something that's not been done before. That something would be to take the combat style of Chivalry or Mount and Blade, and apply it to the MMO format.

IF they could do that, I'd drop WoW in a hot second.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 12, 2012, 10:26:45 AM
Am I the only one who compares old MMO-Developer vets to George Lucas?  Scott Hartsman is the only exception to the rule.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 12, 2012, 10:40:05 AM
I just don't think any MMO project that is aiming at anything like "AAA" is going to turn out well at this point.  Make something narrow and focused that I am interested in and I will try it, but these huge fantasy MMO releases just don't interest me anymore.  I got dragged in to release after release for years, and I'm mostly burnt out on the idea regardless of what feature list they throw at me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 12, 2012, 10:45:20 AM
If the words "tab-target" "lock-on target" or "click target" make an appearance, this game will be DOA. Not once has anyone who ever played a TES game had to "target" anything. They'll lose their audience then and there.

I realize I'm picking the pieces apart of this game as we often do here, and I feel overly negative about it.  I'll likely end up buying it at some point because, well, it's TES.  But I'm extremely suspect that I'll actually like it. 

How are they handling zone levels?  Part of the feeling of the TES games is the ability to go where you want, no con mobs, and possibly just get beat down.  I can't see that translating to an MMO without too much player whine.  However, if the game is simply Cyrodill is the lvl 1-10 newb zone, then Hammerfall is lvl 20-30, then that's some crap. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on November 12, 2012, 11:09:39 AM
I haven't played an Elder Scrolls game without modding the magic system to give me more mana, and I've played almost all of them.  I also mod the skill levelling system, mostly because they never quite got right (imo) the way enemies level up with you, and I hate being underpowered / unprepared because I've jumped, ran, or swam too much, or because I've tried to make some money via one of the crafts.

Obviously, in an MMO, we won't be able to mod anything, which just kills the game for me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 12, 2012, 11:31:58 AM
If you don't care why you're killing 10000 foozles, I can understand the burnout.  It's never been there for me because I did care. It's always been about the "world" to me, even though I play for the game aspects. (I have no interest in being a Space Tailor, thanks.)  

I didn't jump in to several of the games because I couldn't get in to the world and the lore, even if the mechanics were fun.  Guildwars 1 bored me and I wasn't interested, so I can't even attempt GW2 even with all the glowing praise.   The same for Secret World.  I'm not in to horror and Lovecraft so I was immediately disinterested.  Pity, as they both sounded fun.

So fantasy or not, sci-fi or not, the next game will be one that draws me in on that then keeps me via the combination of mechanics and lore.  (No, TES won't be it.  I've tried them since my college buddy went apeshit for the first elder scrolls in '94 and haven't enjoyed a single one.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 12, 2012, 12:09:43 PM
If you don't care why you're killing 10000 foozles, I can understand the burnout.  It's never been there for me because I did care. It's always been about the "world" to me, even though I play for the game aspects. (I have no interest in being a Space Tailor, thanks.)  

I didn't jump in to several of the games because I couldn't get in to the world and the lore, even if the mechanics were fun.  Guildwars 1 bored me and I wasn't interested, so I can't even attempt GW2 even with all the glowing praise.   The same for Secret World.  I'm not in to horror and Lovecraft so I was immediately disinterested.  Pity, as they both sounded fun.

So fantasy or not, sci-fi or not, the next game will be one that draws me in on that then keeps me via the combination of mechanics and lore.  (No, TES won't be it.  I've tried them since my college buddy went apeshit for the first elder scrolls in '94 and haven't enjoyed a single one.)

The real problem is that I just can't look past the fact that the story is all smoke and mirrors in the traditional DIKU model.  You aren't actually changing the game world at all.  WoW phasing is one attempt at fixing this, but in the end it just makes it so I am reminded even more or the game mechanics, not less.  I think I was most "in" to the EVE story, because the story was literally the history of what the players had done, and the reason I was doing something had to do with those interplayer relationships and actions.  You can't replicate that in an DIKU to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Wasted on November 12, 2012, 12:17:59 PM
I'm burnt out on the idea that I need the same game to play for months at a time.  If I get a few weeks out of a single player game in general I feel I got my money's worth, and I treat MMO's the same way now.  I've stopped caring about long term viability, end-game and balancing, all I want is something fun to play for a while.  Once the novelty wears off and I can see the repetition and time sinks to pad out the fun I move on.  I have no loyalty, and aren't swayed at all anymore by the achievement carrots to max out and finish this or that or get the best loot.

Now that I have that perspective I look at a game like this and think, I'll probably get the box value out of it, and stop caring how they will fuck it up for the longer term.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 12, 2012, 12:23:42 PM
was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

We are having a discussion - it's just that not one person here agrees with you about how abso-fucking-lutely great this video is and how it's going to revolutionize the MMO. You don't sound like someone having a discussion, you sound like someone proselytizing for a game that hasn't given one indication it will be any different than anything we've seen before and may actually be a step back considering it's been in development for five years.

You don't have to agree with us that this will suck, but you do have to at least provide SOMETHING of substance that leads you to believe it. 100 people look at that video and you are the only 1 who doesn't think it's at the very best boring, that problem ain't with the 99 or the house they choose to have a discussion in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 12, 2012, 12:29:25 PM
was kinda hoping to get some discussion going again about a game that I think is probably going to be the last of the really big budget MMOs (maybe not if they can pull it off.)

We are having a discussion - it's just that not one person here agrees with you about how abso-fucking-lutely great this video is and how it's going to revolutionize the MMO. You don't sound like someone having a discussion, you sound like someone proselytizing for a game that hasn't given one indication it will be any different than anything we've seen before and may actually be a step back considering it's been in development for five years.

You don't have to agree with us that this will suck, but you do have to at least provide SOMETHING of substance that leads you to believe it. 100 people look at that video and you are the only 1 who doesn't think it's at the very best boring, that problem ain't with the 99 or the house they choose to have a discussion in.

Let's just come out and say it.  Given that F13 is pretty community based, and that this guy hasn't been involved in it much aside from this thread, we all have the nagging feeling he is just trying to promote the game.  It probably isn't true, but its fairly well established around here that you can get away with a bit of crazy as long as you make an effort to be part of the community (I should know).  When new people come in and take part in a variety of discussions, there is more reason to think they are genuine. 

The fact that we are overly cynical here is kind of...well advertised.. but we always have a few "This is going to be great!" people for any given game. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 12, 2012, 12:37:18 PM
Sure, the fact I never see blackwulf posting ANYWHERE but this thread, and all he posts is "I THINK ESO WILL BE TEH GREATEST EVAR!!!!" he sounds like a fucking mole. I don't think he is a mole, but reading posts that only knobslob a game for all the reasons anyone else experienced with MMOG's would say are the reasons you shouldn't trust it would be good gets really irritating.

Experienced MMO devs? NOT A PLUS. MMO devs are worse than government appointees for failing upwards before crashing and burning with someone else's money. MMO success is like the flaming crotchrot. Getting it is fun, but it'll eventually lead to the screaming wiggle death.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 12, 2012, 01:37:57 PM
Experience in a leadership role only matters if the experience was good. If you failed in a leadership role, that doesn't lead me to believe you can succeed in the next leadership role. People always try to spin failure as a learning experience, but that only goes so far. Success is also a learning experience. Guess which guy I want on my team?

If I want to boil it down even further, Matt Firor scares the hell out of me for this exact reason. He was involved in the design of DOAC vanilla, and in DAOC Shrouded Isles. The first opportunity he got as executive producer was Trials of Atlantis. That's absolutely the worst expansion I've played in a game. It tied Cataclysm as reasons I've quit an MMO.

Now he's the director of this game. I'm not shocked he left Mythic when it was purchased by EA, but he'd already done enough damage on DAOC that is was unsalvagable as a title.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on November 12, 2012, 01:56:36 PM
The lead designer for Fury is was still leading MMO developments after Fury went bankrupt  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 02:12:43 PM
I would probably have actually played Morrowind if it had tab-target hotbar combat.  :-P

The only TES game I actually really liked was Skyrim, and even there the combat is more tolerable than good. Mostly an exercise in getting to the point where I can one-shot stuff so I can do the interesting part of the game. So, it isn't correct to say that *nobody* would want traditional MMO combat in a TES game, because I exist.  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 12, 2012, 02:22:50 PM
But you are not an Elder Scrolls fan, Ingmar. Now that I think about it, you are probably the target audience. People who heard a lot about TES but never bothered to play because... it was TES. There's a huge untapped pool of non-TES players out there (probably larger than the TES players) that they want to suck in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 12, 2012, 02:29:15 PM
Skyrim has the best combat of any TES game and it's still pretty mediocre at best (The combat, not the game itself). I'd be more for something like Tera or the <X> Souls games.

I'll likely buy this thing though and check out everything PVE until the endgame though. SWTOR was a disappointment at the end but getting there was pretty cool and I'll flat out say I had fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 02:34:13 PM
But you are not an Elder Scrolls fan, Ingmar. Now that I think about it, you are probably the target audience. People who heard a lot about TES but never bothered to play because... it was TES. There's a huge untapped pool of non-TES players out there (probably larger than the TES players) that they want to suck in.

I started Morrowind, played Oblivion and Skyrim all the way through, and I like the setting and the lore stuff quite a lot. I just never liked the games mechanically, especially the combat and skill system, until Skyrim. (It helps that Skyrim finally has character models that don't cause physical pain to look at...)

I think of myself as at least a fan of the setting, and I like the exploration aspects of the games a lot - just not the mechanics.

EDIT: In general though I do agree with the prospect that they're better off trying to hook their core people first. The thing about people like me who are MMO hotbar combat fans is there are already good games on the market that have that style that we're already playing and we will be hard to pull away.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 12, 2012, 02:37:08 PM
I would probably have actually played Morrowind if it had tab-target hotbar combat.  :-P

The only TES game I actually really liked was Skyrim, and even there the combat is more tolerable than good. Mostly an exercise in getting to the point where I can one-shot stuff so I can do the interesting part of the game. So, it isn't correct to say that *nobody* would want traditional MMO combat in a TES game, because I exist.  :grin:
Pretty much this. I love the concept of the older TES games (huge open world, etc), but the actual combat has always been a let-down for me - even in Skyrim, which was actually sorta okay combat-wise. I loved the heck out of Fallout 3 and especially New Vegas though, so there's hope for Bethesda yet!

(yeah yeah I know, NV was Obsidian... but still)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 02:39:39 PM
The real time clicky combat works much better with guns, yeah.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 12, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
I consider myself a TES fan, but not because of the combat; a huge, explorable world and a skill-based rather than class-based advancement system are probably the two biggest draws for me. Given that TES:O has classes I'm probably not going to bother, since it goes against the spirit of the franchise to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 12, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
Sure, the fact I never see blackwulf posting ANYWHERE but this thread, and all he posts is "I THINK ESO WILL BE TEH GREATEST EVAR!!!!" he sounds like a fucking mole. I don't think he is a mole, but reading posts that only knobslob a game for all the reasons anyone else experienced with MMOG's would say are the reasons you shouldn't trust it would be good gets really irritating.

Experienced MMO devs? NOT A PLUS. MMO devs are worse than government appointees for failing upwards before crashing and burning with someone else's money. MMO success is like the flaming crotchrot. Getting it is fun, but it'll eventually lead to the screaming wiggle death.

The thread has been interesting today, and I don't want to bog it down with a bunch of shit about me, but since several of you have brought it up, here we go:  I pretty much have only posted in this thread because since I made my account, earlier this year, there hasn't been a lot in the MMO arena that is interesting to me.  I posted a bit in the Mechwarrior thread, but it doesn't seem to really be an MMO, and I don't wanna get into that kinda game atm.  I've lurked in many threads, but haven't had anything I considered interesting to add the conversation.  I passed on GW2, cause GW1 left a bad taste in my mouth, and I don't like the asian art style.  I passed on TERA because the candy coated theme park I experienced in the beta made me throw up a little.  I deleted SWTOR with pleasure after a month of sub, and now I'm back to playing old DDO off and on while I wait for the "next" MMO.  I guess mentally, I've decided the next one for me is going to be ESO.  However, I recently hear that "Everquest Next" is supposedly being completely revamped as a sandbox (!!) - if that's the case, I might start spending a lot more of my lurking and posting time on forums/threads about that game.

Haemish, I never have said anything quite like you quoted up above.  :wink: Granted I have high hopes for this game, but I've listed my reasons pretty clearly.  I'm not a mole, and I'm not a huge fan of anything, but I do consider myself a fan of Elder Scrolls - I remember my first time playing Arena and since then I've loved the series.  I have, however, hated the console "dumbing" down of the series.  I was also a huge fan of DAOC.  Hours spent online in DAOC probably equal hours spent in every other game combined.  When I heard many of the orginal DAOC devs were making this game in a Elder Scrolls world, of course I got excited.  I'm still optimistic.  We'll see how it turns out.

After reading the more constructive posts in this thread today, I'm finding that my disconnect with some of you stems from the fact that many of you were/are Elder Scrolls fans, but not necessarily DAOC fans.  Makes sense to me.  Hopefully they won't blow the game for people like you, but it sure is a possibility.  It seems like Matt is pretty set on the end game 3 way war being the focal point.  I'm glad about this, but can understand people not being too happy with it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 05:41:47 PM
I have no trust in former DAOC devs to deliver a better version of RVR than GW2 already has, personally.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bhazrak on November 12, 2012, 05:44:26 PM
I get that they want to broaden their IP into the MMO market, seems to be the thing to do, but this just feels like every other MMO in the past decade with the TES logo slapped on it. I think it's going to end up in the same situation the big IP MMOs that took a leap into the genre in the past few years and I don't really want to see that happen. Thing is, I'm not sure how they could prevent that from happening anyway. Turning what's best about an Elder Scrolls title into an MMO experience already feels like several steps backwards.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 12, 2012, 05:58:57 PM
I have no trust in former DAOC devs to deliver a better version of RVR than GW2 already has, personally.
Is that praise for GW2 from Ingmar? <faints>

:-P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on November 12, 2012, 06:17:40 PM
I'm... one of those broken people who actually likes the combat in TES games. Yes, even in Daggerfall and Morrowind. Skyrim kind of soured on me after the honeymoon wore off, but I imagine I'll go back to it after all of its shitty DLC is out. Morrowind's one of those games I can always pick up and play whenever, like Baldur's Gate or the old Mega Man games. It's comfort food for me now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 12, 2012, 06:26:23 PM
You're not broken. There are several people like us who enjoy the combat in TES games. I'm not a huge fan of the stupid miss mechanic in Morrowind, but the rest of them have been fine by me. Then again, I don't fling spells and I don't shoot arrows. I hit things in the face with a large object.

Always remember, Ingmar's broken.  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 12, 2012, 06:47:36 PM
I have no trust in former DAOC devs to deliver a better version of RVR than GW2 already has, personally.
Is that praise for GW2 from Ingmar? <faints>

:-P

Sure! I like all the parts that aren't shitty!  :grin:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 12, 2012, 07:15:51 PM
I don't mind the combat in TES games, but it certainly isn't the reason I play them.  I like the freedom and the fact that I don't have to do the main storyline to see the whole game (or most of it).  But frankly, even with the best of intentions, the game just won't be the same when you've got 30 people strafe jumping around town.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Scold on November 13, 2012, 12:05:30 AM
Still waiting on my Betrayal at Krondor MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 13, 2012, 04:21:10 AM
I should be more interested in this than I am.

It has the correct number of realms, also rvr.

The retrofitted player aim sounds like a terrible idea. Someone should make a thread about how they did that in swg.

The big problem might be the elder scrolls franchise. Which I associate with the colours grey and brown, and with micromanaging my inventory of turnips.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 13, 2012, 05:38:35 AM
You're not broken. There are several people like us who enjoy the combat in TES games. I'm not a huge fan of the stupid miss mechanic in Morrowind, but the rest of them have been fine by me. Then again, I don't fling spells and I don't shoot arrows. I hit things in the face with a large object.

Always remember, Ingmar's broken.  :grin:

Wait wait wait; hotbar combat is boring and bad and should be banished but Morrowind's "Stand in front of the enemy, click until finger breaks off" combat is okay?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 08:29:22 AM
Have you played Skyrim?

Skyrim combat is infinity better then any standard tab target system. It also removed the need to kill 10 rats, because the combat is much more engaging then standard MMO combat. Kill 10 rats is a symptom of the boring ass MMO combat where they need to pile on the numbers of goals to make it seem like you accomplished something.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 13, 2012, 08:58:03 AM
You're not broken. There are several people like us who enjoy the combat in TES games. I'm not a huge fan of the stupid miss mechanic in Morrowind, but the rest of them have been fine by me. Then again, I don't fling spells and I don't shoot arrows. I hit things in the face with a large object.

Always remember, Ingmar's broken.  :grin:

Wait wait wait; hotbar combat is boring and bad and should be banished but Morrowind's "Stand in front of the enemy, click until finger breaks off" combat is okay?

What did I just say in that quote about Morrowind's miss mechanic? Honestly. I worry about you at times.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on November 13, 2012, 09:14:29 AM
You're not broken. There are several people like us who enjoy the combat in TES games. I'm not a huge fan of the stupid miss mechanic in Morrowind, but the rest of them have been fine by me. Then again, I don't fling spells and I don't shoot arrows. I hit things in the face with a large object.

Always remember, Ingmar's broken.  :grin:

Wait wait wait; hotbar combat is boring and bad and should be banished but Morrowind's "Stand in front of the enemy, click until finger breaks off" combat is okay?

What did I just say in that quote about Morrowind's miss mechanic? Honestly. I worry about you at times.
Uh, you still just plant in front of an enemy and click your attack button until the enemy dies. Dice-roll hits or not, it's still the least engaging combat system ever.

Skyrim's combat is about as engaging. Except sometimes you sidestep magic or arrows. And you can click longer for a hard attack and not as long for a quick one. And while you don't miss by dice rolls, enemies that are tough just take almost no damage which may as well be the same thing. I'm just saying no TES game has had what I would call a "good" combat system despite me liking the series a whole lot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 13, 2012, 09:26:05 AM
No, the least engaging combat system is one that attacks for you while you occasionally click a number.

Look TES is no Mount and Blade, but it's a step up from the standard RPG crap system from two decades ago. Some people love that shit and want to get in a time machine. I do not.

With each iteration of the TES series, the combat has improved. This online version would be the first step back IF it's not done the way we've suggested.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 10:22:49 AM
I'm my range of combat. There is: MMO TAB target ------------ Eldar scrolls -------------------Mount and blade.

MMO combat creates situation where its not about the encounter or over coming it, its about an endurance battle with yourself. This leads to the boring questing we see. After 10 years for me personally, im mostly done. Elder scrolls combat creates a new type of questing, where the battle is the challenge, not the amount you need to kill or collect. Its an active combat system that good enough as a next evolution. Mount and Blade style combat would be even better, as each battle is more dangerous, even if you are "low level", levels, another symptom of MMO combat, but i digress.

Mount and blade style combat i think would be a hard sell, as awesome as it is, it really does take time to master. It would turn off many users instantly. Skyim style is the best of both worlds IMO.

There has been a real push for a bit now to moving to a more visceral, action based systems in online games. Shooters being the current most prevalent, but we see soft targeting with games like AOC and that other asian one, games like Vindicious and others. This is a trend I hope continues.

That being said, nothing about this combat system seems fitting for an elder scrolls game, it seems watered down to convert the Wow player. Another things that's a trend I really think is the future, is the voice overs. We see this more and more, failed or not. To keep up with the experiences of single player games, and the short on reading trend of most gamers, any new game needs to really consider doing it.

Does TESO have voice overs like its single player predecessors, or with it be an even shorter than wow's 250 limit to align with attention spans? IF its not voiced over, I feel they are doing it wrong. In The Elder Scrolls, reading is for the books, not the quests.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 13, 2012, 01:20:44 PM
Skyrim combat is infinity better then any standard tab target system. It also removed the need to kill 10 rats, because the combat is much more engaging then standard MMO combat. Kill 10 rats is a symptom of the boring ass MMO combat where they need to pile on the numbers of goals to make it seem like you accomplished something.

OK are you just making shit up now? Because if your contention is that the TES games don't have their share of boring MMO style quests, you're just plain wrong. BRB gathering 25 crimson nirnroot.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 01:42:51 PM
I can safely ignore those, and have fun combat that is about the encounter, not the numbers. MMO combat means that's all you get. Perhaps I am not explaining something clearly. But your comment does not invalidate anything I have said.

Its the difference of the quest being the fun, not just the reward because the combat is face-roll. I also do not recall stabbing a ninroot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 13, 2012, 01:50:28 PM
I just don't really see a fundamental difference between the 'go here, kill 1 guy' quests that Skyrim is rife with and 'go here, kill 10 guys'. I don't believe the combat system has anything to do with how quests are constructed, not in that way. And really, if anything, the randomly generated radiant quests are less interesting than crafted quests with a purpose, from an immersion perspective.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 01:55:05 PM
Because the entire encounter is more engaging, and that's just the fight. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 13, 2012, 01:58:00 PM
I just don't really see a fundamental difference between the 'go here, kill 1 guy' quests that Skyrim is rife with and 'go here, kill 10 guys'. I don't believe the combat system has anything to do with how quests are constructed, not in that way. And really, if anything, the randomly generated radiant quests are less interesting than crafted quests with a purpose, from an immersion perspective.

I think his argument is that he enjoys Skyrim's gameplay more, and that therefore the quests act just as a pointer towards a place where there is fun gameplay, rather than completing the quest for its own sake (i.e. the contrived reason it is there to begin with, xp/loot) being the gameplay...  I'm not 100% sure I've interpreted it right.

I mean, this is what quests were originally meant to be right?  Pointers towards interesting stuff so that players didn't have to wander around for hours to find interesting bits in the game world, or alternatively sit on the one good farming spot because it was ideal for exp farming.  But modern questing has gone past that either way to being the goal in and of itself.  Completing arbitrary tasks has basically become the name of the game in MMOs.  It isn't about DOING them, it is about COMPLETING, them.  I think Bloodworth is saying in Skyrim it feels more about doing them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 13, 2012, 02:09:23 PM
Counterpoints: [player created] missions in COH, IAs / rifts / dynamic quests / invasions in Rift, DE chains in GW2. I'm sure there are many more examples. "Hotkey combat" isn't associated with kill-10-rats and vice versa.

To some people (me included), having access to 20 or so different abilities I can use strategically (and yes, with good timing / movement) is more engaging and fun than flailing around with a sword and failing to hit something in front of me because I have 400 ping. In other news, different people like different things. :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
Your right. Public quests are just a bunch of people who happen to be in the same spot. Thats only compelling, because its better than standard MMO quests. Nothing more. You get a reward for showing up, or passing through. Not what I would call a solution.

I think Bloodworth is saying in Skyrim it feels more about doing them.

Mostly correct. But I tie it to the combat. The combat itself is the "game", you have to sneak up, shoot, or manage the battle ETC... One dude in Skyrim is harder than 20 rats in a typical MMO in terms of challenge, or even fun. I do not mean challenge as in having all the right gear, but in having good control over strikes and such. Its more compelling, challenging. The encounter is more interactive, you do not need to add in the requirement of lots of kills of one type, or random numbers of legs on boars. Ninroot is a collection quest. Its an exception, not the rule. Where MMO combat makes every quest a Ninroot quest. ad nauseum.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 13, 2012, 02:46:10 PM
It's not necessarily about the fact you can like tab-target combat. The point is that it's been done to fucking death, and it's failed in every single attempt to capture a major audience after WoW.

That's why if TES goes standard combat tab-target in a fantasy world with 3 factions, they are doomed. Not because it's a bad idea, or because people don't like that particular style, it's because people are absolutely bored of it even if they don't want to admit it out loud. They won't stick around in massive numbers to support a monthly sub. On top of that, a F2P title doesn't really generate the revenue necessary to make this a great plan for a well-known studio, when the alternative is to dump assets into another TES Single player game in Hammerfel.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 13, 2012, 02:49:26 PM
I just don't really see a fundamental difference between the 'go here, kill 1 guy' quests that Skyrim is rife with and 'go here, kill 10 guys'. I don't believe the combat system has anything to do with how quests are constructed, not in that way. And really, if anything, the randomly generated radiant quests are less interesting than crafted quests with a purpose, from an immersion perspective.

I think his argument is that he enjoys Skyrim's gameplay more, and that therefore the quests act just as a pointer towards a place where there is fun gameplay, rather than completing the quest for its own sake (i.e. the contrived reason it is there to begin with, xp/loot) being the gameplay...  I'm not 100% sure I've interpreted it right.

I mean, this is what quests were originally meant to be right?  Pointers towards interesting stuff so that players didn't have to wander around for hours to find interesting bits in the game world, or alternatively sit on the one good farming spot because it was ideal for exp farming.  But modern questing has gone past that either way to being the goal in and of itself.  Completing arbitrary tasks has basically become the name of the game in MMOs.  It isn't about DOING them, it is about COMPLETING, them.  I think Bloodworth is saying in Skyrim it feels more about doing them.

No, his argument is that the reason we have to kill 10 things in an MMO is actually because of the combat system, which is nonsense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 02:52:49 PM
No, his argument is that the reason we have to kill 10 things in an MMO is actually because of the combat system, which is nonsense.

More like a better combat system would remove the need to kill 10 rats. Because the combat would be the compelling part. I also think you are forgetting the other part of what makes Skyrim combat compelling. To complete a quest have many, MANY avenues of completion, because of the combat. In a Typical MMO, no other way to do something. That troll is not 1 of 5 I have to kill. It is THE POINT of the quest and it may well end very badly.

In one assassination quest I can:
Back stab.
Bow shot.
Magic kill.
Frontal assault.
Persuade.
ETC..

In an MMO Ii can:
Kill the 10 rats.


When I say kill 10 rats. Im using that as a catch all for MMO quests. Who's design is because the combat is not fun, but rather just a system to fill up the progress bar. In Skyrim, I have to go toe to toe with someone or something. That's a big difference.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 13, 2012, 02:58:50 PM
In M&B the quests are to kill bandits. I don't mind this because I'm decapitating bandits while riding around on my badass warsteed with my roaming band of badasses.

What I'm not doing is finding bandits on the map, going into "combat mode" and hitting 1-4-7-3-1-2 until the bandits fall over.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 13, 2012, 02:59:17 PM
In M&B the quests are to kill bandits. I don't mind this because I'm decapitating bandit while riding around on my badass warsteed with my roaming band of badasses.

And landing the hits like a boss.

You also cited possibly the worst use of your time in M&B. Like, the worst "quest" in the entire game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 13, 2012, 03:31:28 PM
No, his argument is that the reason we have to kill 10 things in an MMO is actually because of the combat system, which is nonsense.

More like a better combat system would remove the need to kill 10 rats. Because the combat would be the compelling part. I also think you are forgetting the other part of what makes Skyrim combat compelling. To complete a quest have many, MANY avenues of completion, because of the combat. In a Typical MMO, no other way to do something. That troll is not 1 of 5 I have to kill. It is THE POINT of the quest and it may well end very badly.

In one assassination quest I can:
Back stab.
Bow shot.
Magic kill.
Frontal assault.
Persuade.
ETC..

In an MMO Ii can:
Kill the 10 rats.


When I say kill 10 rats. Im using that as a catch all for MMO quests. Who's design is because the combat is not fun, but rather just a system to fill up the progress bar. In Skyrim, I have to go toe to toe with someone or something. That's a big difference.

I think you're using 'combat system' when you mean a bunch of other systems that aren't the combat system. Everything you mention could be designed into a hotbar, tab-target game. Hotbar, targeted combat does not mean that a character can't have a ranged attack and a melee attack, nor does it mean you can't have characters that can learn weapons and magic both, nor does it mean it can't have a dialogue system where you talk your way out of things, nor does it mean there can't be stealth gameplay. It doesn't mean any of the things you're describing, none of that has anything to do with the combat system.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 13, 2012, 03:37:37 PM
Yea... I'm sorry, but the 'hotbar combat = kill 10 rats' stuff reads like a lot of wharrgarbl to me.  :ye_gods:

BTW, I found GW2 events and stuff to be a lot more dynamic than Skyrim (especially the radiant quests, ugh). I go explore some place on my own, find a wounded scout, escort her back through various dangers, this turns into an attack on some encampment, we lose the fight due to not enough people, the enemies retaliate and we have to defend a settlement, etc. While doing this, I uncover several new areas and possible anchor points for other events. At no point does an exclamation mark or quest text pop up on my screen - some of this I do solo, other times I'm helped by other people who happen to be in the same area. During this, I alternate between heavy damage, support and control as needed, it's definitely not "tab target next mob and do max dps rotation".

Ditto Rift (Ember Isle and up). I wander around, see a zone-wide invasion happening, I head towards the big bad's icon on the minimap. Meanwhile I stumble on a town being zerged so I switch gears into my healing spec and help the defenders stave off the attack. After the invasion, I join an Instant Adventure and get grouped with some people doing an IA chain leading up to a miniboss or a defend-the-wardstone event. I'm pretty sure clicking on "!"s from questgivers in Rift is only necessary if you want to read the story - which isn't much different from meeting some underdressed Norn mage lady in a dungeon and escorting her through the dungeon that you were going to clear anyway (http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:A_Scroll_For_Anska). And Rift is the "best WOW that is not WOW".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 13, 2012, 05:05:24 PM
More like a better combat system would remove the need to kill 10 rats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI58jazkbCY


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 13, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
Tasks feel arbitrary in MMOs because they don't appear to impact anything except your xp bar and because you end up repeating them ad infinitum.

It has nothing to do with d&d d20 derived combat. In fact a specific hot bar combat character generally gives you more ways to kill 10 foozles than an elder scrolls game.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 13, 2012, 05:39:35 PM
You wouldn't necessarily need the "kill 10 rats" quest if the combat was fun enough to be rewarding by itself. You may still end up killing 10 rats (bandits/gorillas/dinosaurs/whatever) but that wouldn't be the explicit *goal*. Think Skyrim: you kill X enemies in a place, but it wasn't why you went there. You're really motivated to be there other things (exploration, loot, curiosity) than a simple kill quest. In most cases you still had a quest to go there, but the experience was fun enough that it didn't feel like checking off a box for a small XP bonus. The game did not need to give you 20 quests for each 'hub' because one simple breadcrumb was enough to get you to a place where you could enjoy the parts of the game that were actually fun. I don't know that I'd agree that combat in Skyrim was really one of the big motivators, but it certainly is in a game like Monster Hunter. Each 20-40 minute gameplay session begins with a very simple quest, "kill/capture X". It doesn't feel anything like the MMO grind. If the experience is fun enough you don't need to give people 20 artificial reasons to continue playing in each zone they visit.

TERA was a pretty great test for this. The combat was (comparative to other MMOs) fantastic but it was weighed down by pages and pages of boring text. I would have been happier with the game if it just said "Go explore the pirate ship at the end of this cave" rather than giving me 10 generic quests for the cave and forcing me to sit through NPC dialogue I could not make myself care about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 13, 2012, 05:52:11 PM
If you want to get all pedantic, all computer games are "push butan til ded"   FPS:  Mouselook -> Push shoot button till dead.   TES/ M&B:  Get close, push swing button until dead.  DIKU MMO: Push skill button until dead.

It's funny how only one is being distilled to the minimalist level above while the others are raised upon high.  Maybe because the player is burnt out on the one system, not because the system is more flawed than another.  Maybe after 8,000 hours any combat system gets boring because you just spent 8,000 hours doing the same useless something.  Nah, couldn't be that.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 13, 2012, 06:40:45 PM
Maybe after 8,000 hours any combat system gets boring because you just spent 8,000 hours doing the same useless something.  Nah, couldn't be that.

I don't think that's it. FPS combat hasn't really changed much in the past decade but the genre is still booming. Ancient games like Counter-strike still top the most-played list on Steam. It is not inevitable that every combat system eventually gets boring, but the bad ones certainly do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 13, 2012, 06:53:02 PM
Maybe after 8,000 hours any combat system gets boring because you just spent 8,000 hours doing the same useless something.  Nah, couldn't be that.

I don't think that's it. FPS combat hasn't really changed much in the past decade but the genre is still booming. Ancient games like Counter-strike still top the most-played list on Steam. It is not inevitable that every combat system eventually gets boring, but the bad ones certainly do.

This is really the heart of the matter for me.  I can play RTS and Shooters basically indefinitely, but RPGs which hypothetically give me an entire virtual world, just get old after a while.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 13, 2012, 08:29:31 PM
Yes, and the exact same people are playing them as obsessively as ever, 6-8 hours at a time?  No.

Yes, they have changed significantly in the last 10 years.  Skills, classes, unlocks, cover, stealth play, vehicles and that's just what I know since I don't do FPS games regularly.  You're saying FPS games haven't advanced or changed significantly since Battlefield 1942 and that's just false.

ed: The really funny part is this isn't even the first time I've seen this argument.  Raph was saying the exact same thing 7 years ago.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 13, 2012, 09:44:58 PM


Yes, they have changed significantly in the last 10 years.  Skills, classes, unlocks, cover, stealth play, vehicles and that's just what I know since I don't do FPS games regularly.  You're saying FPS games haven't advanced or changed significantly since Battlefield 1942 and that's just false.


Counter Strike..literally the original half life mod Counter Strike is still in the top 5 or 10 daily most played games on steam.  Every day.  In 2012. and 2011. And, well you get the point.  Shit, most days ALL THREE counter strike games are in the top 10.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 13, 2012, 10:59:59 PM
And Call of Duty/Battlefield/(insert modern FPS title) are VERY different than CS; also, way more people are playing CoD on consoles than people playing CS on PC.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 14, 2012, 12:24:55 AM
And Call of Duty/Battlefield/(insert modern FPS title) are VERY different than CS.

I just don't agree with this. The basic gameplay is the same. There are nuanced differences, but you could say the same about hotbar combat MMOs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 02:32:55 AM
Because the entire encounter is more engaging for me, and that's just the fight. 

ftfy


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 02:36:15 AM
It's not necessarily about the fact you can like tab-target combat. The point is that it's been done to fucking death, and it's failed in every single attempt to capture a major audience after WoW.



Guild wars 2 has tab targetting. Hardly a failure. Why don't you guys drop the hyperbole?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on November 14, 2012, 07:58:21 AM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.

The difference between tab targetting and FPS style attacking is how involved you are in the combat.  Tab targeting with RNG usually becomes more strategic, you're more concerned with what ability you need to use on which enemy at which time and executing your abilities.  FPS style attacking is more about trying to get your attacks in while dodging incoming attacks, but you are usually using less abilities. 

Different people find the different paces of each style more interesting.  News at 11


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 14, 2012, 08:01:58 AM
What are we objecting to here? The use of the tab key or the concept of aim being a character rather than player skill? I ask, because both objections seem fucking ridiculous.

Or do we hate xcom now and have fond memories of aiming in tabletop DnD by throwing physical projectiles at NPC minatures.

If it is claiming to be a character RPG seems daft to be complaining about character skill rolls. If you prefer Diablo combat there are plenty of games that do that. Diablo for a start.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 14, 2012, 08:39:16 AM
They're complaining that they're tired of character-based-skill and want a player-skill-based game but don't realize it.  So instead it's focused on "Tab Targeting!" and "Hotbar combat!" instead.

Counter Strike..literally the original half life mod Counter Strike is still in the top 5 or 10 daily most played games on steam.  Every day.  In 2012. and 2011. And, well you get the point.  Shit, most days ALL THREE counter strike games are in the top 10.

If you want to go by player numbers per day you're really going to lose whatever it is you're pushing.  I'd recommend dropping that line of thinking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 14, 2012, 08:47:37 AM
I think Bloodworth is talking about is that when you have to aim and position yourself the very act of combat (no matter what your objective is) is enjoyable.  Where as tab target and hotbar combat is usually less engaging.

I agree with him, but not because one combat system is better than the other, what is really beneath the surface is Mob AI!

In a tab target/hotbar combat system, NPC mobs (unless you're in a raid/dungeon boss setting) are retarded.  They stand there and do their attacks and you stand there and do yours and most of the time you win.  The only time combat is engaging is when you "kite" stuff, which is really not a designed mechanic most of the time.  If you juice up the AI a bit, and make the skills/spells you have more reactive or behavior modified based you'll have a more engaging combat system (GW2 did this and it's why their combat system is superior to WOW/WOWclones; it's actually a hybrid of the two).

In a game like TERA or Skyrim or and FPS, where combat is based off of aiming and positions and dodging, you have NPCs that actually "act".  They hide, they run, then dodge, you dodge etc.  You are actually engaged and using your brain when you are fighting and gain more joy out of the singular experience.

Now to go even further, the target/hotbar system is so fucking dull, designers have to give you other things to do.  Instead of making engaging encounters the norm, they give you list of mundane things to do.  Combat is a means to the end; a way to get that +1.  In the "action-y" type of systems, the combat itself is the enjoyment and you can then design your game, not of kill 100 things, but of killing 2 or 3.

The reason why TERA failed is that they created a great combat system, but kept all the mundane bullshit of the tab target/hobar system in place.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 08:55:32 AM
It's not necessarily about the fact you can like tab-target combat. The point is that it's been done to fucking death, and it's failed in every single attempt to capture a major audience after WoW.
Guild wars 2 has tab targetting. Hardly a failure. Why don't you guys drop the hyperbole?

I didn't say it was a failure. It's not hyperbole at all to say that a tab-target game hasn't captured the 10M user audience of WoW.

Financially, however, GW2 is a different beast. It's based entirely on box sales, which makes it roughly in the same market as any other game release. It's also published by a Korean company that handles a slightly different market contingent for its games. GW2 made about $42M in sales for NC Soft per their recent financial release in Nov 7th. Only 16% of their overall income for that quarter was from the US.

All that being said, revenues were still down for the company, and income was down compared to the prior year even with the GW2 release. The stock has taken a hit as a result. Was it a failure? No. Was it the success that NC Soft wanted? No.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 09:33:37 AM
I think people are forgetting. All things in games go back to the player class. Combat is not just a set of abilities. Its the AI, Environment, the animations, everything hinges on the player. Trying to compare the static, littered with mobs waiting to die environment of a MMO, where the environment itself barely has anything to do with anything. To Skyrim where the environment and AI has a huge effect in what makes up the combat system is silly.

The combination of the Environment, story and actions you can preform make it superior. The lack of thees things leads to ever increasing numbers of requirements because that's all there is, its not about the encounter ( with possible exception of raids ) its about completion, no matter how rote it is.

In the above linked video, environment means jack and shit. The player presses on button and walks past an entire room of waiting to die Mobs. Trying to compare than with the player choice of using sneaking and stealth, and the hugely more difficult act of preforming to accomplish the goal in a system of combat and environment requires more self awareness, situational awareness and environmental awareness is a huge stretch.

The latter is simply a more compelling combat and system, removing the need to pile on more and more mundane, and frankly pointless quest requirements. I have never killed a troll in Skyrim to find out he lacks limbs to harvest.

Now to go even further, the target/hotbar system is so fucking dull, designers have to give you other things to do.  Instead of making engaging encounters the norm, they give you list of mundane things to do.  Combat is a means to the end; a way to get that +1.  In the "action-y" type of systems, the combat itself is the enjoyment and you can then design your game, not of kill 100 things, but of killing 2 or 3.

Exactly.

character-based-skill and want a player-skill-based game but don't realize it.

I fully fucking realize it, thanks! I am speaking of the surrounding requirements, and features that go with it.  Combat is not isolated to what you have on your hot bar, nor is it isolated to left clicking.

The difference between tab targetting and FPS style attacking is how involved you are in the combat.  Tab targeting with RNG usually becomes more strategic, you're more concerned with what ability you need to use on which enemy at which time and executing your abilities.  FPS style attacking is more about trying to get your attacks in while dodging incoming attacks, but you are usually using less abilities. 

Yes. And one requires an entirely different set of features around it. When the player is active and reactive dodging attacks and landing hits, or dealing with the environment. It does not necessitate you harvest 40 entrails from beasts that may or may not have entrails, but still poop.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 14, 2012, 11:00:58 AM
Now you're just bitching that games are below your skill level.  Good luck finding an MMO that caters exclusively to high-skill crowd.

Both your and Draegan's entire last posts can be summed up as, "Combat is too easy because they have to account for terrible players."    If they don't, they can't pay their bills.  A symptom of the player base, not the genre.

Could they develop a high-skill game using RPG mechanics that meets your complaints? Sure, but it'd better be F2P or have a really low overhead and development cost because the subs and cash shop won't be raking it in.  Lower the overhead too much, though, and hello hacks out the ass!

You're not going to get "Meaningful and dynamic environment" of the sort you're talking about in a MMO.  Not one with NPCs at least. Who are the NPCs going to react to when there's a 'stealth threat' or they find  a body?  You alone?  Well now I just have to wait until some shlub puts everyone on alert and run in to get my objective.   Just like good ol' Karnor in EQ.   Send 2-3 your way and the rest wait 'on guard' in case there's another shlub? Oh no, that's what you were complaining about.

You're just ranting to rant and bitching to bitch with no solutions offered and no alternatives, which is why I just realized I had a discussion with myself in the last 2 paragraphs. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 11:42:30 AM
Now you're just bitching that games are below your skill level.

No. I'm not. You just seem to want to take this as some kind of fight. There are pros and cons to each system. Some people like one, and some the other. Thats not really what i have been talking about at all. I have been talking about the designs of each that surrounds them.

But yes, at the end of the day and conversation I am personally tired of MMORPG combat, and think the precedence that all MMO's need to use it, by reason of player expectation or tech limitations, is wrong. Thankfully the trend is changing.

Its just a shame, one title that by nature of its predecessors should demand it, will not be apart of it from what I have seen.

You're not going to get "Meaningful and dynamic environment" of the sort you're talking about in a MMO.

Look around, its already changing in small steps. MMORPG combat was created to emulate in an asynchronous environment to simulate DnD like combat and was heavy restricted by technology. It now trudges on because of this history, not because the tech does not exist to do anything more.

I welcome the day where DnD like combat is more action oriented and hidden to the player, I do not really Consider Today's MMORPG system related to DnD anymore, its its own beast of contradictions to add "depth". More so than 90 skills and abilities can be hidden. The Elder scrolls do a decent job already. You do not need 90 skills that are situational flavors of the same thing. And dumb AI needs to die, MMOrpg AI seems to be the way it is, not because of any limitation, but because of an expectation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 14, 2012, 12:44:22 PM
The fight is with the folks who keep bitching without providing answers.  You admit to being tired of MMO combat. Great, you're a minority as others were saying it was always terrible and FPS is King, yo!  I misunderstood your stance and lumped you in with them.  I agree with you, all have pros and cons it's a question of what you're designing for.  Right now tab-target character-skill nets a wider market share than click-to-kill or FPS player-skill.

So what's your alternative?

You're not going to get "Meaningful and dynamic environment" of the sort you're talking about in a MMO.

Look around, its already changing in small steps. MMORPG combat was created to emulate in an asynchronous environment to simulate DnD like combat and was heavy restricted by technology. It now trudges on because of this history, not because the tech does not exist to do anything more.

/quote]

As it changes it's also becoming more single player or small-party multiplayer and less MMO.  I'd rather not have an always-on SP or Max 8-player game with DLC back end!  Thankfully Blizzard shot the notion of this being a widespread model in the foot for at least another 4 years.  Not that there isn't a market for it but it's not the MMO market.

The tech may exist but good luck with the connections.  The LOLZ MOVE OUT OF THE STICKS trolls that happend in the D3 threads prior to release were precious.  Latency is still an issue and will remain one in the online game space for the foreseeable future. Even those places that aren't "In the sticks" must deal with the oversold networks of greedy I-Providers.

Lunch is over that's all I've got for now


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 12:57:25 PM
You may wish to use that term minority carefully. There will always be standard MMORPG combat holdouts. But the trend, is moving away with every new game that's not just an emulation of the wow model. IMO, where TERA went wrong, was innovating the combat ( Innovation in MMO terms, catching up in terms of game in general ), but gave the expected questing system of old.

Alternatives are already here. We have Hybrids, FPS, "Actiony", what ever you want to call your flavor. Look around. Its now time for user perception to change. Change is coming, and its about god dam time.

EDIT: As for the last part of your post, that I did not realize was a response. Dude. Its happening, no matter how much you trot out the old limited tech excuse. Its wrong now, it was only slightly wrong before. Personal BFE connection is not an excuse. We are past the 56k era.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 14, 2012, 01:14:04 PM
Arguing that replacing character skill rolls with player skill is inherently a shift forward as opposed to a genre choice is precisely as stupid as arguing that turn based is never as good as real time, or that 3D movies are a better way to watch than 2D.

It's 1998 again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 01:22:19 PM
I am baffled that any of you find the mob AI in GW2 and Skyrim "better" than WoW or SWTOR. It isn't different in any noticeable way, except when it is worse (Skyrim dragon flies in circles for 10 minutes, occasionally stopping to fry a deer, ignoring player putting arrows into it.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 01:22:28 PM
Right now tab-target character-skill nets a wider market share than click-to-kill or FPS player-skill.

Uh, Call of Duty Elite numbers a userbase over 12M people. The answer is simple. Put action combat into MMOs. It's already in some of the most popular multiplayer games of all time.

I mean I look at something simple like the combat from Jedi Knight 2 from over a decade ago, and wonder how hard that model is to put into an MMO?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 01:24:18 PM
You may wish to use that term minority carefully. There will always be standard MMORPG combat holdouts. But the trend, is moving away with every new game that's not just an emulation of the wow model. IMO, where TERA went wrong, was innovating the combat ( Innovation in MMO terms, catching up in terms of game in general ), but gave the expected questing system of old.

Alternatives are already here. We have Hybrids, FPS, "Actiony", what ever you want to call your flavor. Look around. Its now time for user perception to change. Change is coming, and its about god dam time.

EDIT: As for the last part of your post, that I did not realize was a response. Dude. Its happening, no matter how much you trot out the old limited tech excuse. Its wrong now, it was only slightly wrong before. Personal BFE connection is not an excuse. We are past the 56k era.

Where TERA went wrong was in making a game for pedophiles.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 01:26:18 PM
Where TERA went wrong was in making a game for pedophiles.

No Contest. /thread


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 14, 2012, 01:28:11 PM
Haemish, I never have said anything quite like you quoted up above.  :wink: Granted I have high hopes for this game, but I've listed my reasons pretty clearly. 

And the reasons that it will be great that YOU have posted are all the reasons you should be wary of this product as someone whose stated experience covers many of the larger MMO's of the last decade.

Quote
I was also a huge fan of DAOC.

As was I. Frankly, I could STILL be playing DAOC and still have the urge to occasionally but one thing stops me. The shitastic leveling curve with UTTERLY BORING PVE. I cannot fucking stand leveling in DAoC. The most fun I ever had in that game wasn't at release (although that was a lot of fun as I led a guild) - it was when I came back a few years afterwards and they'd added the battlegrounds. The level 20 RVR battleground was fantastic because they'd just introduced the "make a character level at level 20 and here's one free level of EXP a week" thing. The battleground was active and the RVR was great. Then I leveled out of that narrow band and found the other battlegrounds barren and had to try to level to 50 to be any use in the open RVR zones. I made it to level 32 before just fucking giving up.


Quote
When I heard many of the orginal DAOC devs were making this game in a Elder Scrolls world, of course I got excited.  I'm still optimistic.  We'll see how it turns out.

This is actually one of the HUGE reasons I'm so down on the game. Being executive producer on a game whose level grind was SO GRINDY that I gave up long before max level means you probably don't have a good grip on what I like in PVE anyway. Also DAoC's PVE was mind-numbingly boring. It took all the camp/pull mentality of EQ and made it slower and more grindy. And what I saw in that video you linked was combat that looked equally as boring as DAoC's combat. So again, all the reasons you've posted for the game being great are all the reasons I think the game will be deriviative, cliched boring shit.

I HOPE I'm wrong. That's actually the exact kind of disappointment I'm looking for.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 01:29:26 PM
Where TERA went wrong was in making a game for pedophiles.

No Contest. /thread
I mean that sort of seriously, honestly. It may have been super fun to play but I'll never know, because I won't play a game that looks like that. And I play nearly every MMO at least on a trial basis. I guarantee they lost a lot of other opportunities like me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 14, 2012, 01:30:17 PM
I did not mean it seriously.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 14, 2012, 01:41:50 PM
I am baffled that any of you find the mob AI in GW2 and Skyrim "better" than WoW or SWTOR. It isn't different in any noticeable way, except when it is worse (Skyrim dragon flies in circles for 10 minutes, occasionally stopping to fry a deer, ignoring player putting arrows into it.)
Yeah, this. My stealth archer used the same 'tactic' of kiting and running away while pew pewing stuff from level 1 to 30 (to be fair, I did get to do it in slo-mo once my skill got high enough), whether I was facing draugr, a high-level vampire caster, or a dragon. On tougher enemies maybe I needed to maybe use some power-up potions and poisons first and use the knockback shout against multiple enemies.

As for a variety of ways to approach a situation, I definitely didn't have the option to use melee or magic in any meaningful situation on my archer... I don't think swinging a melee weapon at 3 skill would've done more than amuse the dragon while it was busy nom nomming on the idiot in front of it.  :awesome_for_real:

edit:
Right now tab-target character-skill nets a wider market share than click-to-kill or FPS player-skill.

Uh, Call of Duty Elite numbers a userbase over 12M people. The answer is simple. Put action combat into MMOs. It's already in some of the most popular multiplayer games of all time.

I mean I look at something simple like the combat from Jedi Knight 2 from over a decade ago, and wonder how hard that model is to put into an MMO?
Man, I'd kill for a game with JK2 combat again. In a mmo with latency though? Eh, the thought of playing a rogue in WOW makes me rage as it is. (it's not just a "get better internet noob" problem, it's a "lol you live in Hungary lol" problem that I can't fix unless I emigrate... so yeah)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on November 14, 2012, 02:08:29 PM
You may wish to use that term minority carefully. There will always be standard MMORPG combat holdouts. But the trend, is moving away with every new game that's not just an emulation of the wow model. IMO, where TERA went wrong, was innovating the combat ( Innovation in MMO terms, catching up in terms of game in general ), but gave the expected questing system of old.
I like WoW-style questing systems but TERA's quests and world are just really boring (though nice to look at).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 14, 2012, 02:13:58 PM
Right now tab-target character-skill nets a wider market share than click-to-kill or FPS player-skill.

This is a good point and it explains why games like League of Legends and Call of Duty are doing so poorly.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 02:35:04 PM
It wasn't Merusk's finest hour on that one, but we can forgive.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 02:43:03 PM
If you add "...in MMOs" to the end of Merusk's statement, which I think was implied, it's true.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 02:46:39 PM
If you add "...in MMOs" to the end of Merusk's statement, which I think was implied, it's true.

The point is there is a target market that enjoys other forms of action combat at even higher numbers than the tab-target, regardless of the game's genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on November 14, 2012, 03:23:05 PM
I think that the targeting method is less important than the slope of the learning curve.  Make the curve too steep and your title instantly becomes niche regardless of the targeting type. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 14, 2012, 03:30:11 PM
If you add "...in MMOs" to the end of Merusk's statement, which I think was implied, it's true.

I don't think you can say this either. Of the current crop of MMOs, those with traditional tab-target action bar combat are more popular. I think that says more about the quality of those games than it does about combat preferences. TERA is the only recent MMO that has gone for more skill-based or action combat, but there were plenty of things going against that game besides the combat which have already been mentioned in this thread (controversial aesthetic, boring quests, unpopular Korean-MMO mechanics, etc.).

League of Legends is basically MMO battlegrounds without the boring combat and unfair persistent items, and it's arguably the most popular game in the world right now. MMORPG elements like leveling, classes, and equipment have even seeped into annual console shooters and proven extremely popular. One of the most popular games this season, Borderlands 2, is only a few steps away from being considered an MMO. Saying that LoL or CoD players would not be interested in an MMO offering similar style combat seems pretty narrow-minded.

I think Titan will end up being the true test of this. I think they realize that action-bar combat has gained what audience it could and that the genre has started to stagnate. If you were Blizzard, would you really make another game that played like WoW? We may finally see an MMO that evolves combat and actually has some money behind it, which has the potential to capture a wider audience and refresh the genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 03:33:06 PM
If you add "...in MMOs" to the end of Merusk's statement, which I think was implied, it's true.

The point is there is a target market that enjoys other forms of action combat at even higher numbers than the tab-target, regardless of the game's genre.

But the fact that they enjoy that gameplay says nothing at all about whether they enjoy any of the OTHER things that make an MMO an MMO. You can't draw the conclusion that there's a huge market of unserved MMO fans who want action combat, just because a whole lot of people are playing a non-MMO with action combat. They may hate everything else that goes into an MMO, it isn't a safe assumption to make.

Rokal, any argument that starts with "League of Legends is an MMO..." is one I can't take seriously. It isn't. It's a multiplayer game, yes. 10 people on a map does not an MMO make, there's no character persistency, etc., etc., etc. It's less of an MMO than non-MMOs like Borderlands or Diablo.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 03:45:30 PM
It wasn't a safe assumption that a 5M in WC3 sales would translate to a tab target combat if you took out the stupid grind and put in casual questing. Turned out 12M jumped in. It wasn't a safe assumption that a market existed for a game console that was entirely based around flailing your arms like a jackass instead of the traditional controller. 97 million units later, turned out there was a massive demand.

At some point, somebody has to break the MMO mold with a solid IP, good financial backing, and not do the same old shit. They have to try the type of combat you've always guessed would be loved by a huge amount of gamers. I fully expect that's what Titan will actually do, but we won't know for a while.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 14, 2012, 03:57:25 PM
Rokal, any argument that starts with "League of Legends is an MMO..." is one I can't take seriously. It isn't. It's a multiplayer game, yes. 10 people on a map does not an MMO make, there's no character persistency, etc., etc., etc. It's less of an MMO than non-MMOs like Borderlands or Diablo.

It's a multiplayer game, played with/against a massive pool of players, with persistent leveling (your 'summoner'), gear, and different "classes" (champions) to pick from and level up. It would be like arguing that WoW suddenly was is longer an MMO when battlegrounds are played with template characters. Or that Rift suddenly stopped being an MMO when they normalized gear levels and there was no way to progress your character's gear or level between matches.

Trying to define whether the game qualifies as an MMO isn't a helpful direction to bring the conversation in any case. Regardless of what you want to call it, it offers a *very* similar gameplay format to MMO battlegrounds but has completely eclipsed MMOs in popularity. You can think about whether the different style of combat has anything to do with that, or you can argue semantics.




Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 04:17:48 PM
The different style of combat has nothing to do with LoL's popularity vs. say WoW. It's the fact that you jump in with a character you don't have to level up, can get in and out of a match in seconds, you don't have to organize with other people to do stuff, you don't have to mess around with any long term planning or goals or anything.

And all that stuff you *don't* have to do, is what MMO fans like about MMOs. It gives them a sense of 'this is my character' that all those other games utterly lack.

That's ultimately why this is kind of a bullshit discussion; you're never going to attract the people who don't want to do any of that stuff to a medium that's defined by doing all that stuff, simply by tweaking the combat system.

EDIT:

And I should say, you have a much better shot at getting Skyrim fans than LOL or Modern Warfare fans. They're already playing a game with all the trappings. But the combat system stuff is a distraction, I would hazard a guess that most of the people playing Skyrim don't play it because they love the combat system, they play it because it's pretty and you kill dragons and explore and it tells a story. That's what they have to capture, the minutia of the combat system is a distraction for game design wonks like us.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 14, 2012, 04:29:33 PM
The different style of combat has nothing to do with LoL's popularity vs. say WoW. It's the fact that you jump in with a character you don't have to level up, can get in and out of a match in seconds, you don't have to organize with other people to do stuff, you don't have to mess around with any long term planning or goals or anything.

You've never played League of Legends have you?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 04:38:03 PM
I've played DOTA2. Correct me if I'm wrong about any of that stuff (I don't consider leveling up the hero you're using in a match 'leveling up a character' in the MMO sense, if that's one of the things you mean. Nor is 'having a plan for what to do in this match' the same thing as long term planning or goals in the sense I mean them.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on November 14, 2012, 04:47:23 PM
In LOL, there is plenty of long-term planning to deal with from setting up the correct rune pages for different roles as well as changing masteries for the same reason. It's not a far piece from tacking on a sandboxy world outside of the matches to being just a typical MMORPG - like Pokemon the MMORPG. MMOG raids/PVP/battlegrounds are roughly equivalent to LOL matches - there just happens to be more stuff tacked on before you get to that end game material in typical MMOG's (the grind) than in LOL.

No it's not the same, but don't think for a second there isn't an equivalent amount of meta-game in a game like LOL or CoD as there is in MMORPG's. In fact, I think that kind of special little pony thinking among development teams is part of the reason why MMORPG's are so stuck in the same gameplay mechanics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 14, 2012, 06:00:19 PM
One thing I would say has become a problem in character skill based games is that since 2004 they haven't allowed positioning, ability stacking, ability/class synergies to affect anything. Character development gas been offering fewer and fewer options, without making those that are left especially interesting.

Again, not the fault of the character skill approach.

The sorts of character synergies and game changing abilities you see in dota pretty much drained out of post-2004 MMOGs.

But you can look at something like CoX and realise it doesn't have to be that way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 14, 2012, 07:48:57 PM
Now you're just bitching that games are below your skill level. 

My only advice to your argument is stop being stupid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 14, 2012, 07:55:28 PM
I am baffled that any of you find the mob AI in GW2 and Skyrim "better" than WoW or SWTOR.

Then I assume you haven't played those two games with any significant time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 14, 2012, 07:58:58 PM
One thing I would say has become a problem in character skill based games is that since 2004 they haven't allowed positioning, ability stacking, ability/class synergies to affect anything.

Don't LOTRO, AoC, DDO and TSW offer aspects of the above?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 08:09:40 PM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.


 You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 08:12:21 PM
It's not necessarily about the fact you can like tab-target combat. The point is that it's been done to fucking death, and it's failed in every single attempt to capture a major audience after WoW.
Guild wars 2 has tab targetting. Hardly a failure. Why don't you guys drop the hyperbole?

I didn't say it was a failure. It's not hyperbole at all to say that a tab-target game hasn't captured the 10M user audience of WoW.

Financially, however, GW2 is a different beast. It's based entirely on box sales, which makes it roughly in the same market as any other game release. It's also published by a Korean company that handles a slightly different market contingent for its games. GW2 made about $42M in sales for NC Soft per their recent financial release in Nov 7th. Only 16% of their overall income for that quarter was from the US.

All that being said, revenues were still down for the company, and income was down compared to the prior year even with the GW2 release. The stock has taken a hit as a result. Was it a failure? No. Was it the success that NC Soft wanted? No.

And of course this is all because gw2 has tab targetting. sheesh.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on November 14, 2012, 08:17:22 PM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
WTF Does this mean. Guild wars 2 has fucking tab targetting ffs. You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat. Sheesh.
GW2 combat is twitchier than some of the other tab-targeted MMORPGs out there.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 14, 2012, 08:22:41 PM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
WTF Does this mean. Guild wars 2 has fucking tab targetting ffs. You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat. Sheesh.
GW2 combat is twitchier than some of the other tab-targeted MMORPGs out there.


Hence why I suggest adopting a new term for what they hate. Thank god they dropped Diku combat. Now we just have to cure them of reaching for whatever is handy.
As someone else mentioned this is reminding me horribly of the arguments against turn based games.





Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 14, 2012, 10:43:15 PM
In the above linked video, environment means jack and shit. The player presses on button and walks past an entire room of waiting to die Mobs. Trying to compare than with the player choice of using sneaking and stealth, and the hugely more difficult act of preforming to accomplish the goal in a system of combat and environment requires more self awareness, situational awareness and environmental awareness is a huge stretch.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1143749/SkyrimSneakSkill.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 14, 2012, 10:54:19 PM
And of course this is all because gw2 has tab targetting. sheesh.

You didn't really make any argument to suggest otherwise. Enlighten us as to why you believe the game didn't meet expectations?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 14, 2012, 11:29:17 PM
This is the first I've heard of the game not meeting expectations. Source?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 14, 2012, 11:41:44 PM
Btw, GW2 isn't purely a box sale - it has a fairly elaborate cash shop that's bringing in large amounts of $ on its own (and will continue to do so), I'm pretty sure. GW1's cash shop offered much less, and it still made crazy amounts of money 5+ years after the game's original release.

Also,
I am baffled that any of you find the mob AI in GW2 and Skyrim "better" than WoW or SWTOR.

Then I assume you haven't played those two games with any significant time.
See my example above. My stealth archer used precisely one tactic from start until endgame, and all mobs were stupid enough to fall for it. Compared to that, mobs in WOW are tactical geniuses since they have the sense to evade bug.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 15, 2012, 12:00:56 AM
Let's not forget mobs who set off the traps in their own dungeon where they've been living for hundreds of years.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 15, 2012, 05:49:40 AM
They are just so excited to see someone new!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 15, 2012, 06:05:44 AM
And I should say, you have a much better shot at getting Skyrim fans than LOL or Modern Warfare fans. They're already playing a game with all the trappings. But the combat system stuff is a distraction, I would hazard a guess that most of the people playing Skyrim don't play it because they love the combat system, they play it because it's pretty and you kill dragons and explore and it tells a story. That's what they have to capture, the minutia of the combat system is a distraction for game design wonks like us.

That's true in my case.  I love Elder Scrolls games, but never have found the combat to be particularly engaging.  I mean Skyrim was swing, backstep, swing, backstep, swing, backstep til mob was dead.  Pretty easy.  Ranged classes were even easier.  Interested to see what ESO brings to the table.  The people who have previewed it claim that the combat is very engaging and that mobs have good AI - using synergies with other mobs, etc.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on November 15, 2012, 07:01:54 AM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat.

I don't hate tab combat, I hate GW2 dragon battles because they are shittly designed once you get past the "oooh neat" aspect, they don't require much skill or strategy, don't require much attention, and don't seem like it's possible to fail since they always have a zerg around them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 15, 2012, 07:22:16 AM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat.

I don't hate tab combat, I hate GW2 dragon battles because they are shittly designed once you get past the "oooh neat" aspect, they don't require much skill or strategy, don't require much attention, and don't seem like it's possible to fail since they always have a zerg around them.
FWIW I've come close to failing a dragon event once (only had 2 people on shatterer, which means that his periodic regen crystals did more healing than we could do damage, and we got nearly overwhelmed with summoned adds... eventually 2 more people joined in and we downed him, but it definitely wasn't trivial or easy). Also, the 3 dragon fights in GW2 are not really representative of anything except for 'put big enemy against unorganized zerg' like Wintergrasp/Tol Barad bosses in WOW, invasion bosses in Rift, etc. Come to think of it, I'd say the Claw of Jormag fight is better than any of those...

In general, group fights/events in GW2 (and Rift for that matter) get better if your group/zerg is smaller. I had some really memorable fights with 1-2 other people against a champion boss / group event. When you have 20 people it's going to be crap no matter what - the only alternative would be to put in some heavy-handed zerg-busting mechanics, which would be... bad for any number of reasons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xilren's Twin on November 15, 2012, 08:07:13 AM
And I should say, you have a much better shot at getting Skyrim fans than LOL or Modern Warfare fans. They're already playing a game with all the trappings. But the combat system stuff is a distraction, I would hazard a guess that most of the people playing Skyrim don't play it because they love the combat system, they play it because it's pretty and you kill dragons and explore and it tells a story. That's what they have to capture, the minutia of the combat system is a distraction for game design wonks like us.

That's true in my case.  I love Elder Scrolls games, but never have found the combat to be particularly engaging.  I mean Skyrim was swing, backstep, swing, backstep, swing, backstep til mob was dead.  Pretty easy.  Ranged classes were even easier.  Interested to see what ESO brings to the table.  The people who have previewed it claim that the combat is very engaging and that mobs have good AI - using synergies with other mobs, etc.

And Igmar's description is precisely the reason so many of us think TESO will not be good.  Exploring and telling a story is something most MMO's suck at, even though we have seen attempts made in that direction by GW2 and SWOTOR recently.  "Oh look I'm the head of the assassins guild - just like fifty thousand other people!"  GW2 certainly encourages exploration better then most, but IMHO part of the fun  of exploring the vast world is doing it on your own and finding something interesting as a result.  It's hard to make an MMO generate the sense of "this story/experience is completely mine" they way a single player game can b/c of the mass of people sharing it with you and the ultimate static nature of the gameworld.  The nature of the thing works against you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2012, 08:46:59 AM
This is the first I've heard of the game not meeting expectations. Source?

The game in Q3 financials sold less than Aion in Q1. It's comparable to the income they made on average for Lineage 1 in Q1-2 of 2012.

When you're talking about net effects to financials, the release of the game made them about $9M using their 20% margin rate before Other G/L unrelated to operating.

The point is that they were looking for a bump from sales to beat total earnings in Q3 2011. Even with an extra 45M won coming in from GW2, NC Soft still only tied their YTD revenue totals on the year, and their total operating Margins have plunged from 25% to 12% on the year. They put money into this thing and they only have 56M to show for it in operating profit. Last year they had over $118M on the same amount of total income.

As a result the stock took a hit. Price has gone from 344,000 to 162,500 in the matter of a year. Again, this isn't to say that GW2 didn't sell. It did, but they missed on the same PC gamer market where Diablo 3 sold over 8M copies, and WoW has 10M subs, and the investors answered those missed expectation with a selloff.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 15, 2012, 08:52:43 AM
This is the first I've heard of the game not meeting expectations. Source?

The game in Q3 financials sold less than Aion in Q1. It's comparable to the income they made on average for Lineage 1 in Q1-2 of 2012.

When you're talking about net effects to financials, the release of the game made them about $9M using their 20% margin rate before Other G/L unrelated to operating.

The point is that they were looking for a bump from sales to beat total earnings in Q3 2011. Even with an extra 45M won coming in from GW2, NC Soft still only tied their YTD revenue totals on the year, and their total operating Margins have plunged from 25% to 12% on the year. They put money into this thing and they only have 56M to show for it in operating profit. Last year they had over $118M on the same amount of total income.

As a result the stock took a hit. Price has gone from 344,000 to 162,500 in the matter of a year. Again, this isn't to say that GW2 didn't sell. It did, but they missed on the same PC gamer market where Diablo 3 sold over 8M copies, and WoW has 10M subs, and the investors answered those missed expectation with a selloff.
The NCSoft stock has been taking a hit because NCSoft's been screwing the pooch everywhere else. They have at least 2 other games in the pipeline eating up massive amoutns of development $. It's also why they had to close down COH. Expecting one game to save them from the failures and costly development of many other games is a bit much.

(and like I said before, GW2 isn't a pure box sale. Even for GW1, most of the income came from microtrans I think)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2012, 08:57:22 AM
I don't disagree that they are screwing the pooch elsewhere. That's part of why they expected GW2 to ride in on a white horse and save the day.

GW2 has not tapped the same market that it could because of its inherent limitations. Some of them are related to the foreign company, some of them are related to the gameplay, and some of them are related to the problems with distribution/lauch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 15, 2012, 02:15:23 PM
So, you're guessing based on numbers rather than working on an actual statement of "We expected X dollars from GW2 and got Y"?

I'm not saying you might not be right but you sounded very ...factual about it, the first time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 15, 2012, 02:20:29 PM
GW2 dragon battles were terribly boring, though for the most part GW2 battles were more interesting than most tab targeting.
You guys need to come up with a new term that properly defines what you hate about MMO combat.

I don't hate tab combat, I hate GW2 dragon battles because they are shittly designed once you get past the "oooh neat" aspect, they don't require much skill or strategy, don't require much attention, and don't seem like it's possible to fail since they always have a zerg around them.

First, I agree with this. However, if you want pure boredom try a late night Jormag kill when there are very few people on. You're praying for the zerg because his huge f'ing hp don't scale much to crowd size. Also what little strategy seems required (dont stand on the blue patches) still seems to kill a lot of people. I don't think they really programmed a failure condition on dragons.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2012, 02:25:06 PM
So, you're guessing based on numbers rather than working on an actual statement of "We expected X dollars from GW2 and got Y"?

I'm not saying you might not be right but you sounded very ...factual about it, the first time.

Well guessing is a bit harsh. I'm basing it on the expectation of the investor in regards to the financial performance of the company. A stock doesn't drop by half in a year because things are getting better, and it certainly doesn't fall off after an earnings release (with GW2 income in it) by 25% in less than a week. Although I'm sure I could pull an actual quote if A - they didn't want to charge me for a translated transcript of the call, or B - I knew Korean.

Per a statement in Massively - "NCsoft said that it is banking on Guild Wars 2 to produce a profitable third quarter." This was coming off a loss in Q2. While it did produce a positive Q3, it wasn't anywhere near as profitable as 2011 in terms of operating profit. I'd love to get more information, but the language barrier gets in the way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on November 15, 2012, 05:14:55 PM
JFC, this is going to be another 200+ page thread by launch, isn't it?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 15, 2012, 05:58:15 PM
JFC, this is going to be another 200+ page thread by launch, isn't it?
(http://i.imgur.com/0HU7k.png)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 15, 2012, 07:11:50 PM
The different style of combat has nothing to do with LoL's popularity vs. say WoW. It's the fact that you jump in with a character you don't have to level up, can get in and out of a match in seconds, you don't have to organize with other people to do stuff, you don't have to mess around with any long term planning or goals or anything.

Huh what?

MMOs like WoW are typically mechanically very shitty - they need the "stickyness" stuff like items and XP because without those the base game is fucking garbage.

LoL doesn't need traditional "stickyness" shit and "RPG elements" because the game itself is fundamentally fun to play.

Someone mentioned Borderlands  - good example of a game that NEEDS "RPG elements." Without leveling and a million different items the game would be garbage. Backpedal and shoot Skags for 40 hours straight - what a game! If you look at the vast majority of games that have "RPG elements" in them the RPG elements very obviously serve to paper over a game that would otherwise be way too thin. And MMOs are the extreme version of this - if you remove leveling and different items and such from MMOs and look at the base gameplay they are universally awful.

WoW could very easily make arena battle as accessible as LoL battle. (I'm not really up to date on WoW, so maybe it's already accessible for all I know) But if you tried to make WoW arena battles competitive in the sense where time spent in game didn't make a huge difference people would quickly realize that the base mechanics for fun skillful small group combat just aren't there.

I have been beating this drum for literally like 8 or so years now...the fundamental issues with MMOs is that the underlying mechanics just don't make for fun games. Now some MMOs are fun, because of the social interaction and the stuff layered on top and such, but the base mechanics of MMOs are just not enjoyable on their own. Most MMOs are mostly combat-based where the combat itself is terrible.

Quote
And all that stuff you *don't* have to do, is what MMO fans like about MMOs. It gives them a sense of 'this is my character' that all those other games utterly lack.

LoL is a competitive game, so allowing you to level up a character in a significant way over time is hard to do right. That said people do like to customize their characters with skins, characters do level up during the course of a game, you put points into skills, people on forums figure out which builds and items are best. A lot of it is like MMO leveling but on an extremely compressed time scale.

And I think if someone could figure out a way to do persistent character leveling in a way that didn't break balance people would love it.

Comparing LoL to WoW is a bit apples and oranges, but I think it's very fair to say that MMO base gameplay is pretty poor, and it's very hard for me to understand how making it better would be a bad thing. Forget even "tab targeting" vs twitch or whatever, even if you look turn based strategy and slower-paced management games MMO combat is still typically pretty bad as it's generally simple, repetitive and takes no real strategy of any kind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 15, 2012, 08:37:05 PM
Depends which mmog you play.

Wow has shallow mechanics but a lot of the older MMOGs don't. And the model could be made as complex as you want.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 15, 2012, 09:57:25 PM
Depends which mmog you play.

Wow has shallow mechanics but a lot of the older MMOGs don't. And the model could be made as complex as you want.

I suppose.  Maybe it is just current technological limitations, but it seems to me that most MMOs who have tried actiony content end up having to sack it for performance reasons, where it just feels a bit too sluggish to actually feel twitchy, so it is better to default back to the "turn based" combat of CRPGs which although boring, actually feels less sluggish (even when it is slower paced) because things respond consistently as expected.

I'd love to see what an MMO with Quake 3 combat looks/plays like, but I Just don't see it happening.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 15, 2012, 10:17:52 PM
It also looked like NCsoft's Blade & Soul launch cannibalised their Lineage player base rather than brought in new players.

In some ways I think the market over-adjusted on NCsoft - their figures weren't that bad. However, they probably were pumped up by a lot of investors thinking that GW2 was going to raise the share price who all started dumping stock when it didn't. Which then became a flood.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 15, 2012, 10:30:55 PM
Wow has shallow mechanics but a lot of the older MMOGs don't.
This really isn't an accurate criticism anymore.

Actually, now that I think about it, I don't know as it ever has.  Most people just didn't see much high level play in early WoW unless they were in GM/HWL gear with maxed out engineering; or raiding BWL, AQ, and Naxx.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 15, 2012, 10:35:47 PM
It also looked like NCsoft's Blade & Soul launch cannibalised their Lineage player base rather than brought in new players.

In some ways I think the market over-adjusted on NCsoft - their figures weren't that bad. However, they probably were pumped up by a lot of investors thinking that GW2 was going to raise the share price who all started dumping stock when it didn't. Which then became a flood.

That's pretty much my thought. While 2M in unit sales was good, it's not exactly mind-blowing when you take into account recent sales figures for games. It was more about missed expectations than GW2 not being a good game, but the game simply didn't tap a big enough market for those investors.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 16, 2012, 02:56:49 AM


I'd love to see what an MMO with Quake 3 combat looks/plays like, but I Just don't see it happening.

Sort of like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tjK5OI2oAQ

When he says combat mode he means mod.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 16, 2012, 04:11:15 AM
Neat.

I went and checked to see if you could do the same for WoW, unfortunately not easily.  The game doesn't register the @mouseover script condition when you are using mouselook, so you'd have to write some sort of external script that untoggles mouselook, selects what is under the cursor, and then toggles mouselook back on.  Then you'd get banned by Warden for being a bot. :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 16, 2012, 05:25:44 AM
"Tab targeting" or hotbar-based combat is not really a problem in itself, it just goes hand in hand with a certain type of design. Taking a hotkey / tab targeting game and making it so that pressing left mouse is the same as pressing 1 doesn't fundamentally change anything.

THe problem is that in MMOs tab targeting / hotbars almost always go along with idiotic punching-bag enemies, repetitive optimal combos that work on almost everyone, etc.

In many ways Xenoblade combat is MMO combat, you have what is basically a hotbar with abilities on timers. But in Xenoblade you manage 3 characters, there are a lot of position-dependent abilities, you need different skill setups to deal with different types of enemies, there is some on-the-fly adjustment needed with reviving guys and the premonition stuff, etc. Of course there are a lot of enemies that you can just run up to and pound on and beat, but there are a lot of enemies that are not major bosses that still take some finesse to take down without being "learn which spot not to stand in" gimmick battles.

Making combat more actiony / twitch may well be a good direction to go in, but my point is more that even staying in the realm of cooldowns / hot bars / tabbing MMO combat could still be much more interesting than it typically is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 16, 2012, 08:04:04 AM
Yup.  I said that two pages ago.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 16, 2012, 08:08:58 AM
And it wasn't really true then either. At least not for GW, CoX, Daoc or a bunch other games that aren't wow.

Some people even argue it isn't true for wow.

I do agree that more recent games have been trending down toward the overly simplistic though. Not everyone agrees.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 16, 2012, 08:41:04 AM
And it wasn't really true then either. At least not for GW, CoX, Daoc or a bunch other games that aren't wow.

Some people even argue it isn't true for wow.

I do agree that more recent games have been trending down toward the overly simplistic though. Not everyone agrees.

Of course it's true, or you're not paying attention.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 16, 2012, 06:08:13 PM
Hey Draegan, when's the last time you played WoW?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 17, 2012, 08:12:45 PM

MMO players expect continued advancement of one character for hundreds of hours. So yeah, game play whether borderlands FPS, a twitch MMO like Tera or a more traditional tactical focus MMO is going to get elongated and repetitive. And they'll still weep when the road runs out. You want every battle to be a dynamic and unique set-piece that's fine but those games tend to have durations in the 10's of hours and are better suited to single-player.

PvP players are somewhat different. They're happy to play the same battle for years while they refine their execution and build up their character over-time. But this game-play gets very little from a persistent world MMO, the optimal persistent component is a game lobby and it doesn't need to be game-like. Indeed it tends to be damaged by the power creep and mechanics of a developing persistent world game. Which is why GW2 let's these people skip the MMO bit of the game.

Stop trying to turn all games into the same thing. MMO's are meant to be an achievement over time, PvP games are a short sharp battle and a killboard and adrenal set-piece combat suits single player.

Not that any of this is likely to be relevant to elder scrolls online.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 17, 2012, 09:16:45 PM
Stop trying to turn all games into the same thing. MMO's are meant to be an achievement over time, PvP games are a short sharp battle and a killboard and adrenal set-piece combat suits single player.

I agree that it's kind of pointless to design for everybody at this stage, since everybody already has a niche that's covered pretty well by an existing title.  That said, I do think PvP is the only way out for the genre, ultimately, since most PvE content tends to be done better, cheaper, and faster in a single player context.

Most PvE MMOs don't really have to be massively multiplayer, mechanically, I could play about 90% of World of Warcraft or it's myriad followers either single player or with a fairly small group (forty or less for just about everything non PvP).  I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen more "Minecraft"-style server setups in RPGs, where persistent worlds are set up and run by players, on dedicated servers with relatively low player counts.  Just about the only thing you NEED hundreds of people for is a big competitive market (which is peripheral to the orc killing in most MMOs), or a massive PvP war (which doesn't happen because nobody's figured out a way to do it without scaring the casuals).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 18, 2012, 06:27:57 PM
Stop trying to turn all games into the same thing. MMO's are meant to be an achievement over time, PvP games are a short sharp battle and a killboard and adrenal set-piece combat suits single player.

I agree that it's kind of pointless to design for everybody at this stage, since everybody already has a niche that's covered pretty well by an existing title.  That said, I do think PvP is the only way out for the genre, ultimately, since most PvE content tends to be done better, cheaper, and faster in a single player context.

Probably the easiest but not the only way. And certainly not the way that leads to the biggest money hat.

I've still not seen any mmog team put any real effort into a sustainable episodic content delivery process.

Yes, it is hard, and no, it hasn't been done well yet. But even TV soap operas demonstrate every day how it is perfectly possible to build content in a cheap and continuous stream, so long as your production team is properly organised.

Changes of strategy every three weeks and a the transparent lack of planning for post launch we've seen in every major mmog ever, clearly don't help.


And cooperative multiplayer is a bigger market than pvp, every single time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 18, 2012, 06:43:28 PM


I'd love to see what an MMO with Quake 3 combat looks/plays like, but I Just don't see it happening.

Sort of like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tjK5OI2oAQ

When he says combat mode he means mod.


Looks decent.  Reminds me of Champions Online, which had (has I suppose) a control scheme similar to that which you could turn on.  It was pretty fun for some builds, but barely usable for others.   I guess at the end of the day I'm looking for an MMORPG which dispenses with most of the gameplay conventions of CRPGs.  I guess something like Darkfall combat, but more polished so as not to feel clunky.  In fact, now that I think about it, Darkfall combat is probably pretty close ot what I'm looking for, just as a model for the sake of discussion. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 18, 2012, 09:50:12 PM
I've still not seen any mmog team put any real effort into a sustainable episodic content delivery process.

Sure, I'm just not 100% on the reason why you'd develop an MMO specifically around episodic content like that.  It seems like a better fit for something like a Neverwinter Nights or a Dragon Age, a smaller scale game that doesn't have to worry about all the problems that you get as an MMO, everything from issues with player agency and balancing to the nightmare technical problems and social issues.

I just get the feeling that, rather than looking at the MMO genre as a whole and saying "we have hundreds of players interacting here, how can we make a fun and unique game out of that" or looking at their epic story based RPG and saying "what kind of format would be the best way to develop and sell this game", the typical thought process behind the design pitch begins and ends with the idea of getting $15.00 per player per month, and trying to justify that expense to the player, which seems like a backwards way to design anything.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 19, 2012, 12:15:16 AM
How many of the people clamoring for actiony combat in this thread have tried GW2, btw? (free weekend going on now)

For example, on my staff elementalist the only real use of tab targetting is to see if something's out of range / what debuffs etc. it has. Basically all of my skills are ground targeted and/or 'skill shots'...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 19, 2012, 12:50:52 AM
How many of the people clamoring for actiony combat in this thread have tried GW2, btw? (free weekend going on now)

Not I, admittedly.  I plan on picking it up eventually, but haven't gotten around to it yet (combination of money and *effort*).  Currently trying to get TERA to work, so maybe once that snags I'll get around to it.  I like a lot of the things I've heard about it, I just haven't been able to convince myself to drop $50 on it yet, for some reason.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 19, 2012, 03:39:08 AM
Yeah, GW2 is way twitchier than most of the stuff out there, especially cause it's one of the few MMORPGs where you can shoot everything regardless of the target and, most importantly, you can completely waste a cooldown whenever you cast/shoot on a target that is (or just went) out of range. Tab-targeting, while present if you want to use it, is really close to non existence at this point.

I've been re-re-re-trying Tera these days, but it's the first time I'm doing it since GW2 came out. Most significant difference is that in GW2 you can't miss with ranged single target attacks (if you have nothing tab targeted your arrow/spell goes for the first available target), unless they are out of maximum range, while in Tera you literally have a crosshair and have to keep your enemy in it the whole time, with every single shot.

GW2 is a big step forward from the usual MMORPG combat if you ask me, I can't even think of going back to a game where I can only use a skill if I have a target selected or if they are in range. That has been my biggest gripe since the 90s, the disconnect between what I wanted to do (draw a sword and swing it) and the impossibility to do so regardless of target.

But Tera, while still a bit slower than your generic console action-RPG (attacks tend to root you in place for a few instants) is definitely twitchier and presents a much more visceral kind of combat.

To put it simple, you can say what you want but the traditional MMORPG-hotbar combat has always been just a glorified whack-a-mole where you use your mouse clicks to whack the moles (hotbar skills) as soon as they pop up (cooldowns) according to a pre-determined (most efficient rotation) and never changing pattern. GW doesn't break this mold, it just starts to stretch it a bit, like Age of Conan did.

In Tera, your left mouse button swings your weapon (for the record, I tried to remap this into GW2, you can't). There are still some moles to whack (a hotbar with some cooldowns) but the focus is on aiming (the crosshair is present for melee attacks too, and mouselook is on by default) at your enemy, and actively avoiding their attacks by moving around and away from their attack animations (right mouse button doesn't fiddle with the camera, it's an active dodge roll instead). Health regen between fights is very slow, so you are not gonna rely on your Defense Rating to prevent annoying downtime, you have to rely on dodging blows and avoid getting hit, like in Golden Axe, Final Fight or Double Dragon if you know what I mean.

I am sure there's a big market for both kinds of MMORPG combat. It's just that the action kind has been underrepresented so far due to technical limitations, but it's hard not to think that's going to change and make a huge impact in the genre.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 19, 2012, 04:12:37 AM
Just as a note about GW2 projectiles, you CAN miss if the target moves behind LOS after you launched the missile ('obstructed') and in many cases you can side-step projectiles too without needing to move out of range or LOS by changing your movement direction/speed between the time of firing and impact (slow-moving projectiles like the staff fireball are a good way to test this, but some people reported being able to pseudo-dodge the rapid-fire volley used by the karka this way too). It is also possible to body-block projectiles; I do it all the time on my elementalist - pop my projectile reflect skill and stand in front of an ally getting nuked. You also don't automatically target a nearby mob with target skills if the 'auto-target' function is turned off in options.

GW1 was also pretty twitchy projectile attack-wise even back in 2005 - see here (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Projectile) for general projectile mechanics and here (http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Bow) for different types of bows and how arcing / weapon speed / positional bonus damage / etc works with them. FWIW, this made me and my 400ms latency hate playing a ranger.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 19, 2012, 06:42:18 AM
I know we've covered this but I have never played the MMOG you speak of where players simply run their rotation.

My defiler in eq 2 had 49 buttons and only 2 of them were anything remotely like a rotation.

There are games and classes with a greater or lesser amount of variety, and the genre could certainly use more, especially for solo or lower level play; but what you are saying simply isn't my experience.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 19, 2012, 07:40:27 AM
And I never played the MMORPG without rotations.

You have to admit though that I am not the one who invented the term rotation, right? Are you really gonna argue that when you are max level (in pretty much any MMORPG) you are honestly using different skills based on the mob, outside of just acknowleding that they are ranged or not, one or more (which means you are simply gonna pick a different rotation)?

Fine, I guess, but that's not my experience either.

Also, trivia time, as far as I know the "whack a mole" expression MMO-wise was coined specifically around EQ2 about 8 years ago. Personally, I played the hell out of that game in 2005, and I remember that unless you had unexpected mobs "adding" to an encounter, you definitely had to whack-a-mole your most efficient rotations for literally hours and hours. Maybe it was a defiler thing. It might be a bit different for healing classes, as the need for a heal or a purge can interpolate in your rotations, but I have a hard time believing you were dynamically playing your 49 skills.

As a last note, I'd say EQ2 was a much more layered and complicated (and hard) PvE MMORPG than the ones we have now. For the most parts, I'd say hotbars or not they have been massively dumbed down, and rotations and macros are now considered features, shrines to the god of Repetition.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 19, 2012, 07:55:52 AM
I'd definitely agree complexity has declined since 2004 .

We don't even have enchanters any more. People have forgotten what the 'trinity' even means.

But even in wowalike swtor in pugs at max level people still have to mark certain mobs for cc, use strategies like knock backs, assess which mobs are strong against which abilities, manage interrupts, as well as understand boss strategies beyond "don't stand in fire".

 I completely agree there should be more of this. And synergies between classes, more environmental features, more options in character build to influence play style.

But no one is going to tell me torchlight, Diablo, elder scrolls, or other action RPGs have less mindless button mashing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 19, 2012, 08:06:48 AM
I agree that boss fights are a different story. Sadly, they are like what, 5% of the whole experience for even the most dedicated players?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 19, 2012, 09:56:39 AM
How many of the people clamoring for actiony combat in this thread have tried GW2, btw? (free weekend going on now)

For example, on my staff elementalist the only real use of tab targetting is to see if something's out of range / what debuffs etc. it has. Basically all of my skills are ground targeted and/or 'skill shots'...

I have guild wars 2.  The combat is more fun than most MMORPG combat for sure.  Dodging is nice.  I don't particularly like the pacing of the combat on a large scale, but it isn't terrible.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 19, 2012, 01:34:37 PM
Hey Draegan, when's the last time you played WoW?

Seriously or for a single session?

I was at my fathers a few weeks ago and tried my hands on a monk.  What's the point though? 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 19, 2012, 03:37:39 PM
I agree that boss fights are a different story. Sadly, they are like what, 5% of the whole experience for even the most dedicated players?

That is fair. If the motion before the house is 'MMOG style hotbar combat post 2004 has been over simplified and does not adequately explore the potential of the genre' then I'm with you.

But I see this as an argument for better hot bars, not for reverting to Diablo style button mashing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 19, 2012, 03:39:00 PM
It does seem extraordinary odd to me that the people who prefer games with 8 or 10 buttons think they are the ones arguing for tactical complexity.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 19, 2012, 04:11:13 PM
Waite, Diablo has good combat now?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 19, 2012, 04:15:25 PM
It does seem extraordinary odd to me that the people who prefer games with 8 or 10 buttons think they are the ones arguing for tactical complexity.

It does seem extraordinary odd to me that people think the number of buttons are so important for tactical complexity.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 19, 2012, 04:16:46 PM
I just want to hit things in the face. I don't want to politely tap them in place until they fall over.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 19, 2012, 04:20:39 PM
It does seem extraordinary odd to me that the people who prefer games with 8 or 10 buttons think they are the ones arguing for tactical complexity.

Did I fall in to the sarchasm here, or do I seriously need to explain why "more buttons = tactical depth" is an incredibly poor argument to make?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 19, 2012, 05:10:33 PM
When I think of engaging combat in games, I think of Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Starcraft 2, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Tribes.   I'd go as far as to say I've never played an RPG with really engaging combat.  When I've played RPGs (MMO or not) it has basically never been because I just couldn't get enough of the combat.  I like the pausable pseudo turn based stuff in the early Bioware titles, but then you are controlling an entire party - something that never happens in an MMO.  It is because I like the game setting, or Role Playing, and so forth.  But those are the very things which have become less and less represented in the genre, which I think accounts for my decline in caring about CRPGs in general.  Seeing as they seem to be largely moving away from those things anyway, they are going to have to change the combat to something I actually like to get me to play them.

All of the games I mentioned have a few things in common:

1) High Speed - by this I mean literally high speed.  Things happen quickly, and often.  MMORPGs tend to have a relatively slow pace.

2) Lots of decision making - Quick, precise, good decision making matters in all of those games.  The games are dynamic and contingent enough that you have to have a strong base skill set which allows you to make good decisions which arise in the moment, rather than knowing the ideal thing to do beforehand. (Starcraft 2 has a concept of builds, which are probably an exception here, but builds are in no way at the expensive of a good understanding of the game which allows you to make good decisions in the context of a particular game).

3) Low margin for error - make a mistake, and you are hosed, and probably hosed immediately.  I would include in this the ability to make mistakes.  It is basically impossible to make mistakes in most MMO combat.  The limitation for most MMO combat is knowledge, but after you've "figured it out" most MMO combat becomes a bore to me.

4) Movement - This matters a lot in games where combat is engaging to me, Rocket Jumping in Quake, Blink Micro in Starcraft, strafe jumping in Counter Strike.  GW2 did ok with this with the dodge mechanic, which was my favorite part of the combat by a wide margin.


None of this has to do with hotkeys, or crosshairs, or binding things to the mouse.  It is generally less about what my hands are doing and more about what my brain is doing.  Number of key presses has nothing to do with it frankly.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ajax34i on November 19, 2012, 09:15:17 PM
How hosed are you, though?  Lost xp hosed?  Need to corpse-run hosed?  Need to break into another plane naked to get your corpse back hosed?

I think the limitation for MMO combat is cat-herding; you can definitely have it "figured out", but try to get your group or raid to actually do what they know they're supposed to do, it's not easy.  And knowledge is definitely not the limitation.

BTW, you started with talking about (solo) RPG's vs. your games, but your four points are about MMO's, where all the organizing and cooperating and other people do affect the combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 19, 2012, 11:12:46 PM

I think an MMO should play like a FPS.

... logs into a laggy GW2 event with high latency to do a precision jumping puzzle.

Yeah, maybe not.

A game focused on playing with other people gains a lot from a slower and more tactical combat system where you have time to integrate your actions with the actions of others, communicate with them as you go and deal with latency. EQ was a superior social environment at least partly because the action was slower and that encouraged communication. Whereas twitchy console-inspired games like DCUO rapidly prove to be shallow.

Now a large scale shooter, a battlefield or planetside, I can see. But the general response in practice is it's too hard to get to the action, it's all about the zerg and getting rolled and it's not as tight as a set teams, set time FPS like, "Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Starcraft 2, Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Tribes".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 20, 2012, 02:40:24 AM
An advantage of actiony combat is that it can feel satisfying even without much depth. It's fun to whack things in real time, knock dudes up into the air, headshot people, etc.

Measured combat is really only fun when the combat has some difficulty or strategy.

I think FFXI is a good example of doing this right and wrong. When FFXI came out the best way to get XP was to group up and fight against IT++ enemies - very hard enemies. ("Impossibly tough") These enemies could actually kill you, and if you got an add or something you had to play pretty well to live. And these were normal enemies, not bosses. It wasn't rocket science but people can and would die to them. Even if you were fighting weaker enemies they often spawned around IT++ enemies that could come out of nowhere and shiv you. (Goblins!)

Years later the best way to gain XP was to burn through VT enemies that spawned near other VT enemies. It's basically impossible for a group to die to VT enemies even with an add - or even for a single member to die. Because enemies die so fast using mana on them for helpful debuffs is actually counter-productive. People also stopped using skill chains because enemies were so weak it was better to use abilities as soon as they were available instead of doing them in tandem.

So by tweaking the difficulty (actually just the XP formula) the game completely changed in terms of strategy - going from at least some to essentially none.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 20, 2012, 02:45:01 AM

I think an MMO should play like a FPS.

... logs into a laggy GW2 event with high latency to do a precision jumping puzzle.

That's not my experience with GW2 at all. I am sure there can be latency episodes, but I'd say the tecnology has been nailed by now. Planetside 2 is another good example (Also Tera, to stay closer).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 20, 2012, 03:56:43 AM
My wife works there, the guys in charge of the realm vs realm design are the same guys who were responsible for DAoC.

Don't you dare tease me like this!

Didnt people say the same thing about War?


The difference is that on WAR an explicitly stated aim was to make rvr not fun like it was in doac.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 20, 2012, 04:35:56 AM
That's not my experience with GW2 at all. I am sure there can be latency episodes, but I'd say the tecnology has been nailed by now. Planetside 2 is another good example (Also Tera, to stay closer).

Tera is only on sale in two regions globally for good reason. And even within those I doubt acceptable action game latency ping ( < 100) is universal.

An advantage of actiony combat is that it can feel satisfying even without much depth. It's fun to whack things in real time, knock dudes up into the air, headshot people, etc.

Not really, it's just as meaningless, though I do notice as long as console players can mash an action button and have a variety of animations fire they're happy. That was the logic behind champions online (mash auto attack, animation sequences) but it wasn't actually interesting in an MMO context. Partly because of latency and partly because the other half of most of these action games is having low hit point, highly variable behaviour, human opposition.

The TF2 bot mode bored me senseless very quickly.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 20, 2012, 08:42:52 AM
How hosed are you, though?  Lost xp hosed?  Need to corpse-run hosed?  Need to break into another plane naked to get your corpse back hosed?

I'm mainly talking dead. In most MMO combat (aside from raids or really tough instances) you can make huge mistakes and be fine.  This encourages me to not actually give a crap and do something like watch TV while playing, I just don't have to pay close attention.  This is pretty much the opposite of "engaging" combat.

Quote
I think the limitation for MMO combat is cat-herding; you can definitely have it "figured out", but try to get your group or raid to actually do what they know they're supposed to do, it's not easy.  And knowledge is definitely not the limitation.
For raiding, sure, but raids make this important by ramping up the difficulty.  And this is actually a good thing - solo or group.  It addresses the first point - you have to actually pay attention.

Quote
BTW, you started with talking about (solo) RPG's vs. your games, but your four points are about MMO's, where all the organizing and cooperating and other people do affect the combat.

I think it is perfectly fair lumping all RPGs in together more or less, the combat is generally the weakest point of all of them.



A game focused on playing with other people gains a lot from a slower and more tactical combat system where you have time to integrate your actions with the actions of others, communicate with them as you go and deal with latency. EQ was a superior social environment at least partly because the action was slower and that encouraged communication.


Counter Strike and Team Fortress have engaging combat and require team work  (at high levels of play).  Speed matters more when playing with strangers, but if you are playing with a group of people you know, teamplay isn't restricted by game speed.  Even team games of Starcraft 2 are fast paced and require lots of team work.  I don't see that this is a legitimate issue with fast paced combat.


Partly because of latency and partly because the other half of most of these action games is having low hit point, highly variable behaviour, human opposition.


This is also a big thing that I should have but failed to say.  A major part of what makes combat engaging is exactly this.  This is one of the reasons I liked Darkfall combat actually, despite how clunky it was.  The AI, while not brilliant, acted a lot more like a player.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 20, 2012, 03:22:08 PM
"*I* don't like RPG combat, therefore they all fail."

Great argument.  Here's an equally great answer.  "*YOU* shouldn't play them"

See, I don't like Counter Strike or team fortress.  They're too fast for my shitty reaction, early arthritis and 40-year-old-man vision. Ergo they should all change to turn based systems because they suck being so twitchy and fast.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 20, 2012, 03:58:30 PM
"*I* don't like RPG combat, therefore they all fail."

Great argument.  Here's an equally great answer.  "*YOU* shouldn't play them"

See, I don't like Counter Strike or team fortress.  They're too fast for my shitty reaction, early arthritis and 40-year-old-man vision. Ergo they should all change to turn based systems because they suck being so twitchy and fast.

Um, we are arguing what we want to see in MMO combat systems/what is engaging combat to us.  This isn't some objective discussion, not sure why you're all upset about it.  As for your retort, you are exactly right, that is what I'm doing - not playing them. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 20, 2012, 09:24:14 PM
"*I* don't like RPG combat, therefore they all fail."

I like RPG combat when it's good. To me good RPG combat, if it is turn-based or slow-paced, means there is some sort of meaningful strategy / tactics / management aspect.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on November 21, 2012, 08:32:42 AM
You're all getting awfully vague now...good combat is good, bad combat is bad. Duh.

Personally I'd love an MMO with combat that starts of somewhere from Fallout 3/F:NV. I played them slightly modded (basically more damage all around - kill/die in 2/3 shots, not 10+) and it definitely was on the good side of the play-because/play-despite fence.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 21, 2012, 08:59:48 AM
To me, good combat in an MMO is:
  • A limited number of abilities so I don't have to learn to play a piano.  I really love MMOs that make you create a "decK" like COH or GW2.
  • Combat that is built on positioning and dodging.  I like GW2's hybrid system.  If you swing in one direction, you hit no matter your target.  I like TERAs system where you have to aim.  You don't need all of these but I enjoy combat where positioning and movement matter.

That's really it.  You can add all different layers of raid movement, combo systems with other players like LOTRO or FFXI, and it really doesn't matter to me to make it enjoyable.  The actual mechanics of using my keyboard and mouse and how they impact gameplay is what matters to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 21, 2012, 09:30:33 AM
Have they announced which nerd-celebrity they are going to kill off in the tutorial yet?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 21, 2012, 09:57:52 AM
Yeah, I think GW2 and The Secret World are a natural evolution of hotbar MMO combat in a much more dynamic direction, where positioning and dodging are becoming more meaningful, and spamming or whacking buttons is counter-poductive. This without becoming too dependant on reflexes and eye-hand precision.

They both only have 9 buttons max to press.
They both have active dodge.
They both have soft-targeting and can shoot/cast most of the stuff without a target, possibly wasting cooldowns.

Again, I do not think one kind of combat is superior to the other, although I obviously have my preference. I am just glad MMORPG developers are starting to make games with a more action-based combat after more than ten static years of cooldown-based monopoly (Exception: Age of Conan, 2008).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Trippy on November 21, 2012, 11:58:13 AM
Asheron's Call, 1999 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 21, 2012, 12:38:57 PM
I've been waiting for someone to mention AC for 20 pages now. What's really interesting here is to analyze why they scrapped positioning and dodging from MMORPG combat for ten years after that. The answer being: it didn't make EQ money, so they gathered from that that the RPG crowd wasn't caring about moving around as much as they cared about achieving. WoW proved (and sealed) the point.

Newer generations? I am pretty sure they will want their achievements to come from lots more action _in comparison_. Turn based games will never die, but I really think that slow paced hotbar based MMO combat is going to evolve into something faster and more dynamic across the board. Something the RPG audience was simply not ready for (and kind of hating) in 1999.

We had /face back then, dammit. Do any of you think something like that would be possible in a MMORPG coming out now? I know there's some out there (and here) that would still love to have the /face command, but you aren't gonna get it. And that's the slow but steady evolution I'm talking about.

My point being, there's a big audience for both kinds of combat in MMOPGs now. But that wasn't equally true ten years ago cause genres and their mechanics (and their players) were much more defined and separated.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 21, 2012, 04:54:39 PM
/face and /stick were big parts of DAOC - I'll be suprised if ESO doesn't have at least /face.

Also - the people who played the preview describe combat that sounds exactly what you (Falconeer) and Draegan describe...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 21, 2012, 06:38:55 PM
I'll be suprised if ESO doesn't have at least /face.

You can't be serious. I mean it, you can't be serious.

What I (and probably Draegan) described is the antithesis of /face. And yes I know it was in DAOC, and DAOC combat was nothing like what (they claim) they want to do in ESO. You really want this to be DAOC 2, but even if it were (and it's not) it wouldn't be the DAOC 2 you would make.

Seriously. How many people out there in the world in 2012 you think want a /face command for a PvP game (or even PvE)?
The best you can hope for is a "lock target" button if the thing turns very action-y, but that would make your DAOC 2 a console game. And something tells me that's not what you are dreaming about.

In fact, I think your dream is really impairing your objectivity here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 21, 2012, 06:46:54 PM
I don't want /face, I want my attacks to hit regardless of facing. Because "jousting" is the most lame, low ping abusing, form of PvP ever invented.

Or in other words there's a gameplay reason why daoc had /face.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 21, 2012, 07:48:32 PM
I don't want /face, I want my attacks to hit regardless of facing. Because "jousting" is the most lame, low ping abusing, form of PvP ever invented.

Or in other words there's a gameplay reason why daoc had /face.

This.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 22, 2012, 02:47:52 PM

I've been re-re-re-trying Tera these days, but it's the first time I'm doing it since GW2 came out. Most significant difference is that in GW2 you can't miss with ranged single target attacks (if you have nothing tab targeted your arrow/spell goes for the first available target), unless they are out of maximum range, while in Tera you literally have a crosshair and have to keep your enemy in it the whole time, with every single shot.



That's because you have the EZ-Mode hit closest target option on in gameplay options.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on November 22, 2012, 02:54:47 PM
I just want an MMO with mount and blade combat, why is that so hard!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on November 22, 2012, 03:34:40 PM
Because even Mount & Blade has a hard time doing Mount & Blade combat online.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on November 22, 2012, 10:56:34 PM
All one needs is some negative ping code. It will solve all these problems, for sure.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on November 23, 2012, 12:32:50 PM
/face and /stick were big parts of DAOC - I'll be suprised if ESO doesn't have at least /face.

Also - the people who played the preview describe combat that sounds exactly what you (Falconeer) and Draegan describe...
/face and /stick were for people who got run off the Zeks in EQ for being terrible players.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on November 23, 2012, 01:15:49 PM
/face and /stick were big parts of DAOC - I'll be suprised if ESO doesn't have at least /face.

Also - the people who played the preview describe combat that sounds exactly what you (Falconeer) and Draegan describe...
/face and /stick were for people who got run off the Zeks in EQ for being terrible players.

Now now, lets not start the epeen flexing.  Don't make me reinstall that game and /duel challenge you...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 23, 2012, 01:51:07 PM
Simply put, /face was for c-roleplayers, who at the time weren't that versed in real time combat after years of muds and turn-based things, and were not going to like an online RPG that put such a strong focus on reflexes and eye-hand coordination. Also, a crutch for the network limitations of year 2000.

I can't stress enough that there's room for any kind of playstyle. Hell, look at turn based and all the love it still gets (I love it myself). But do you really think Elder Scrolls Online is gonna have /face? Really? Wanna make a bet?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 23, 2012, 05:16:40 PM
Kageru already explained the real issue behind face.

You can all stop strawmaning now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 24, 2012, 01:19:31 PM
Seriously or for a single session?

I was at my fathers a few weeks ago and tried my hands on a monk.  What's the point though?

Just wondering what your point of reference was.  "Games are trending more simplistic in basic fight design" sounds very insane unless you've been living in a cave for the last five years and not seen random world mobs in many games get more than one ability to use on the player.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 25, 2012, 08:33:44 PM
More than one ability? Amazing!

Kind of like...basically every single enemy in FFXI, a game from 2004 or so?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 26, 2012, 02:57:19 AM
An outlier does not a pattern make.  I forget, weren't there some other games that launched in 2004?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 26, 2012, 03:23:09 AM
Eq, daoc, AC, eq2, cox, ac2 all had multiple abilities on npcs. I don't understand what you people are talking about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 26, 2012, 09:42:34 AM
Seriously or for a single session?

I was at my fathers a few weeks ago and tried my hands on a monk.  What's the point though?

Just wondering what your point of reference was.  "Games are trending more simplistic in basic fight design" sounds very insane unless you've been living in a cave for the last five years and not seen random world mobs in many games get more than one ability to use on the player.

I'm not talking about comparing an NPC that has only a single target attacks and a heal vs. an NPC that has a ST attack, a heal, a frontal AOE and a summong spell.  I was talking about taking that and then adding movement and dodging into the equations.  That only really comes into play if you have a combat system that supports positioning and dodging though.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 26, 2012, 06:11:51 PM
Eq, daoc, AC, eq2, cox, ac2 all had multiple abilities on npcs. I don't understand what you people are talking about.
A little bit of hyperbole on my part.  The argument of Margalis and Draegan seems to be that NPC and encounter design are getting dumber, because early MMO's were such paragons of tightly programmed mob AI.

They might be on to something though.  The mobs in World of Tanks are retarded.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 26, 2012, 06:20:57 PM
I honestly think a huge part of it is that with the earlier MMOs it was all pretty new and the pure novelty value of having this huge world to explore, monsters to find and fight, dungeons to clear, et, etc, the mechanics just didn't matter as much to us.  The "experience" of playing the game was great because of what it was.  Nowadays, a lot of us are "over" that feeling and the big fantasy themed game world just isn't enough on its own.  We want more engaging gameplay - however that is defined on the individual level.  We can argue all day over which combat system we remember the most fondly, but I have a feeling that those memories are shaded by the context of being an early-MMO player.  What matters is what will engage us now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 26, 2012, 06:41:09 PM
Eq, daoc, AC, eq2, cox, ac2 all had multiple abilities on npcs. I don't understand what you people are talking about.
A little bit of hyperbole on my part.  The argument of Margalis and Draegan seems to be that NPC and encounter design are getting dumber, because early MMO's were such paragons of tightly programmed mob AI.

They might be on to something though.  The mobs in World of Tanks are retarded.

Pretty sure their actual point was that combat mechanics and PC abilities were more complex, and carried a higher player skill cap as a consequence.

I'd say boss abilities were roughly similar though not telegraphed as clearly as they are now. Took about a year for people to work out the mechanics on a daoc dragon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 26, 2012, 06:56:55 PM
Combat mechanics and PC abilities weren't more complex, IMO, unless we're comparing them to GW2/TSW. At best they were more obscured because of shitty and/or false documentation, which made it harder to be a good player, perhaps, but not in any kind of way that should ever be emulated again.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 26, 2012, 08:38:55 PM
Yeah, mechanics on EQ bosses were nothing.  DAOC dragons weren't any more advanced, we just didn't have the tools or the exact mechanics were obscured from us in the name of lord knows what.   The fights took trial and error and tons of wipes because nobody knew what they were doing.  You'd start to figure things out then *WHAM* new and unexpected phase you had to work through with new mechanics.

http://www.classesofcamelot.com/misc/ClassGuides/mid_dragon.asp
That is not a tough fight once it's all spelled out for you.  There's 2 abilities and a team swap, you get harder fights in today's one-group dungeons in any other DIKU.

People forget the hue and cry over Blizzard giving us actual numbers now that it's 8 years later.  The hardcore raid crowd said it would be the death of all things and make games too easy.   Instead it's meant they have to actually design shit instead of throwing things up and saying, "Figure it out, ha ha."



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 26, 2012, 08:40:58 PM
A little bit of hyperbole on my part.  The argument of Margalis and Draegan seems to be that NPC and encounter design are getting dumber, because early MMO's were such paragons of tightly programmed mob AI.

They might be on to something though.  The mobs in World of Tanks are retarded.

I don't remember claiming encounter design was getting dumber, rather that it started dumb and stayed dumb. But that said it does feel to me that MMOs today are generally easier. (Even if the "difficulty" in older games was not really strategy and more stuff like not having a map, needing to level a lot, etc)

Quote from: Merusk
Yeah, mechanics on EQ bosses were nothing.  DAOC dragons weren't any more advanced, we just didn't have the tools or the exact mechanics were obscured from us in the name of lord knows what.   The fights took trial and error and tons of wipes because nobody knew what they were doing.  You'd start to figure things out then *WHAM* new and unexpected phase you had to work through with new mechanics.
...
People forget the hue and cry over Blizzard giving us actual numbers now that it's 8 years later.  The hardcore raid crowd said it would be the death of all things and make games too easy.   Instead it's meant they have to actually design shit instead of throwing things up and saying, "Figure it out, ha ha."

I don't understand how having to figure stuff out is a bad thing, especially in games that are ostensibly about exploration, discovery and fantasy. Isn't learning how systems work rewarding? Would Megaman be better if the game told you what order to do the bosses in and what weapons to use on them?

Instead of having a threat meter can't you just learn what generates threat? It seems to me that the WoW attitude is basically that the game should play itself - tell you how much threat everyone has, tell you which spells to cast, tell you exactly where to go for each quest. What does "playing" WoW actually consist of? A slightly more elaborate Simon Says?

I'm not arguing that fundamental mechanics should be inscrutable and that things like minimaps shouldn't exist, but there is a point at which you are giving the player information they could intuit or learn if their brain hadn't atrophied. The idea that learning through "trial and error" - aka experimentation - is a bad thing is just unfathomable to me.

In a game where you have to learn through experimentation what generates how much threat managing threat is a legitimate skill. In game with a threat meter managing threat means what? You stop attacking when your mod plays a warning whistle?

Every game has a million variables under the surface. The idea that they should all be exposed to the player and that anything else is somehow bad design is silly. Especially things like threat which logically should be hidden information given that they exist in the mind of the enemy.

The history of WoW seems to be removing things that take player knowledge and judgement and replacing them with automation.

Edit: To me the game that WoW players are looking for is basically not a game. It's almost invalid to talk about skill or strategy in WoW combat - that seems to be completely missing the point of what WoW is about. It's like talking about the skill and strategy required in platforming in Uncharted - it's just fundamentally not about that. If you want platforming with skill you play a different game.

Which is fine I guess, but personally I am not a fan of "press X to win" "experiential" games. With a few exceptions I want a lot of game in my game. If I'm going to play a game that is 90% combat my personal desire is for combat to be challenging and rewarding, not just a way to get items and increase a meter while eating a sandwich.

Regardless of my personal opinion I think WoW has the "cast heal when the game tells you to cast heal" sub-genre market wrapped up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 26, 2012, 10:01:00 PM
And despite everything you wrote about WoW information/mods telling you how to play and when to do what, people do not. Consistently.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 26, 2012, 10:13:40 PM
What Paelos said. If you were to intentionally obfuscate more information in WoW, you would need to also make the game much easier in order to avoid alienating a good deal of the playerbase.

Also, a lot of the information that is provided in the default UI in WoW today is only there because player-made addons provided that info for years. Which means that a substantial amount of WoW players want that info; things like threat meters and DPS parsers make it much easier for semi-hardcore guilds to break into high end raiding. Without knowing who did what wrong, it is difficult to improve. In a single player game, trial and error is fine. But when you're playing with 9-24 other people, it's helpful to know which of them stood in the fire or whatever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 26, 2012, 10:19:44 PM
And despite everything you wrote about WoW information/mods telling you how to play and when to do what, people do not. Consistently.

And moreover, the amount of useful information you get from those mods is always overstated. (In-combat. The amount of useful information you get for mulling over in your off-time is usually understated.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 26, 2012, 10:27:32 PM
Obfuscation of core mechanics only helps small people think they lead accomplished lives through meaningless successes.   If figuring out a boss took 10-15 minutes like any other game, sure, hide it.  That's never going to be the case in a game with 9-25 other moving parts on top of whatever difficulty switch you're on.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 26, 2012, 10:46:03 PM
And despite everything you wrote about WoW information/mods telling you how to play and when to do what, people do not. Consistently.

That's both a cause and effect of how WoW is designed. The game does a lot to help lazy bad players but also encourages players to be lazy and bad. People tend to play up or down to expectations and WoW expects very little of players.

This is sort of a modern game design thing, like players playing a game with a map that tells them exactly where to go and still getting lost. A lot of games implicitly tell the player to shut their brains off, so they do, so they perform somewhat poorly at tasks they shouldn't have problems with.

Quote from: Merusk
Obfuscation of core mechanics only helps small people think they lead accomplished lives through meaningless successes.

Defensive much? I could just as easily say that people who need everything spelled out for them, even things their own brains should be able to figure out with a small expenditure of actual effort, are either morons or incredibly lazy and want to feel like they are accomplishing something while performing at a level that would make a trained seal embarrassed.

Hidden information is an important and very valid aspect of game design, and there is a difference between information and mechanics that are genuinely obfuscated and information and mechanics that require player exploration to understand.

Quote
If figuring out a boss took 10-15 minutes like any other game, sure, hide it.  That's never going to be the case in a game with 9-25 other moving parts on top of whatever difficulty switch you're on.

What is the actual game in WoW? It's not figuring stuff out, it's not being good - is it just the willingness to grind rep and dailies and dungeons over and over? It seems that the skill of WoW is willingness to spend time playing WoW.

So let's say you do a boss for an hour, wipe to a new attack, then have to do it again. Ok, the alternative is what? Beat the boss on your first try then do the boss 500 more times anyway? What's the difference?

Quote from: Rendakor
What Paelos said. If you were to intentionally obfuscate more information in WoW, you would need to also make the game much easier in order to avoid alienating a good deal of the playerbase.

Sure. So then let's not pretend that WoW is a skillful strategically complex game. I'm not arguing that WoW should require more skill - that's not the game it is. Unfortunately that also applies to most MMOs, which is what this discussion is about. I'm arguing that there is a large untapped space for MMOs that do have game systems that require real skill and strategy.

Quote
Which means that a substantial amount of WoW players want that info; things like threat meters and DPS parsers make it much easier for semi-hardcore guilds to break into high end raiding.

DPS parsers and threat meters are fundamentally very different.

In a typical MMO you can see how much damage you are doing and how much damage your allies are doing. That information is not in any way obfuscated nor should it be. A DPS parser just collects and organizes that data. It's a different view of information you already have. In theory a player could mentally keep track of that data themselves and tally it afterwards - however being able to do that is probably not a skill the game should reward.

Threat is something that you can not see in the game, nor is there any reason you should be able to see it, any more than you should be able to see the million other variables that govern NPC behavior. You see the expression of threat in terms of who the AI is attacking, not the raw numbers. In addition players managing threat via experience, knowledge and intuition probably is a good skill to reward, as it's one of the few genuine skills in a game like WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 26, 2012, 10:52:31 PM
In any case threat mechanics/meters are a shitty example to pick, regardless of which side is right in the argument overall.

Threat meters in WoW exist primarily because of raid fights where it was important for a specific character to maintain a #2 position in terms of threat output. This is information that is effectively impossible for players to determine for themselves through trial and error alone, especially when there are 40 people in a raid creating their own little variables, like the interactions between debuffs from one class and damage type from another and the maximum debuff cap (very low in the early days of WoW), etc.

I mean, it could be done, but not on the sort of time scale where you are dealing with a real world situation of trying to keep 40 people entertained, not for any but the most singleminded, odd people. And spending time on those people has always been a fairly foolish use of dev time.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 26, 2012, 11:10:01 PM
In any case threat mechanics/meters are a shitty example to pick, regardless of which side is right in the argument overall.

Threat meters in WoW exist primarily because of raid fights where it was important for a specific character to maintain a #2 position in terms of threat output. This is information that is effectively impossible for players to determine for themselves through trial and error alone, especially when there are 40 people in a raid creating their own little variables, like the interactions between debuffs from one class and damage type from another and the maximum debuff cap (very low in the early days of WoW), etc.

Isn't this just bad design then?

I thought the argument was that by not "obfuscating" mechanics Blizzard was forced to rely on good design instead of gimmick design, but you seem to be arguing that threat meters were needed to counteract bad design.

Why would you make a 40-person raid where a specific individual has to have the second-most amount of threat? Instead of mitigating that with "why don't we just explicitly tell you how much threat everyone has" it seems it would be better to just scrap that design entirely.

Edit: The reason I'm picking on threat meters is that managing threat is one of the most fundamental skills in a genre that doesn't require much skill. Making threat meter explicit means that rather than rewarding people for an accurate mental model of threat you are rewarding them for herding cats properly.

A lot of this argument seems to boil down to "when you are grouped with 39 morons herding cats is the only relevant skill." In that case maybe 40 (or 15, or 10, or 5) people is too many or too many for the game systems and encounter design. As a design philosophy if you are going to make a raid that takes 40 people it's better to balance it so that the 10 best largely determine success rather than that the 10 worst can sabotage the entire group.

Edit: To circle around to the original argument again there is IMO a lot of room for an MMO game that has a lot more meat in terms of combat mechanics. That could be turn-based combat, real-time combat, FPS combat, Dark Souls combat, whatever. We're getting bogged down in how meaty WoW combat is, at this point I'm willing to agree to disagree with anyone who thinks WoW combat takes a lot of skill and strategy. (At least of the right kind)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kail on November 26, 2012, 11:34:40 PM
Hidden information is an important and very valid aspect of game design, and there is a difference between information and mechanics that are genuinely obfuscated and information and mechanics that require player exploration to understand.

Could you clarify this a bit?  I'm kind of fuzzy on the distinctions being used here.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 27, 2012, 12:42:15 AM
WoW doesn't take a lot of skill and strategy; that's not why I play it. When I was playing WoW a lot (WotLK era) it was for the shared social experience; my guild consisted of some RL friends and work buddies, and we got to sit on Ventrilo bullshitting while we killed internet dragons. Now, some of the people in the guild were serious gamers, but others were our girlfriends, friends, etc. that had heard of World of Warcraft and wanted to give it a shot. If (or perhaps, when) it was more challenging, those non-gamers would never have turned into long term subscribers and it's largely this casual, non-gamer market that made WoW so successful. Arguing for more challenging, skill-based gameplay seems to be arguing for a smaller, niche title (like Darkfall maybe); however, listening to those clamoring for greater difficulty is what fucked up WoW so bad in Cata.

Also, things like threat meters haven't really been relevant since BC days so that kind of a silly argument. Threat management isn't a skill in WoW anymore beyond the first few seconds of a fight.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 27, 2012, 12:55:51 AM
Hidden information is information that is not available to the player but is available to another player or the system. For example opponent hands in poker, position of units in a fog of war, etc. Revealing hidden information can fundamentally break a game.

Obfuscation is deliberately muddying something that should be understandable. It's spending effort to make things less understandable. (As opposed to not putting effort in in the first place) I can't think of many legitimate examples of this in video games. Maybe something like the crap that gets smeared over your screen in a shooter when you take damage. That's a literal obfuscation of the screen, though I don't think that's necessarily negative. (Even though I generally hate that screen-smearing crap)

There's a third category of sort of UI stuff like DPS parsers, listing the DPS of a weapon, etc. Stuff that does work for the player that they could do on their own with some busy work. If you want to know the DPS of a weapon you can multiply attack speed by damage yourself. It's not hidden information, but on the other hand I wouldn't consider not listing DPS as obfuscation either. I'm ambivalent towards things like that - for example DPS doesn't measure overkill and by presenting it as a stat it can seem more important than it really is. In an RTS two units with the exact same DPS can vary a lot in effectiveness due to overkill, so to me presenting DPS as a stat can be both misleading and encourage players to not think carefully.

There are no hard and fast rules of game design. Is it important for a game to accurately describe all it's systems? It depends on the game. That's the only real answer.

I don't like the idea that if games don't give players the exact info that WoW gives them that game is "obfuscating" something. It's just a different game. What people are calling "obfuscation" is just a game not making data or rules explicit - which is fine for some games. And there is a ton of data that WoW doesn't make explicit either. Figuring out core mechanics can be a core mechanic in itself.

Quote from: Rendakor
WoW doesn't take a lot of skill and strategy; that's not why I play it.

Well..yeah. The broader point I am making is that the continuum for MMOs is pretty narrow where even game much "harder" and more skill intensive than WoW aren't much to write home about.

Quote
Arguing for more challenging, skill-based gameplay seems to be arguing for a smaller, niche title (like Darkfall maybe); however, listening to those clamoring for greater difficulty is what fucked up WoW so bad in Cata.

It fucked up WoW because WoW is fundamentally not that game and it's too late to change it. But to circle back to the original argument again, League of Legends is skill based, Call of Duty is skill based. Monster Hunter is skill based.  A lot of skill-based games find broad audiences and a lot of low-skill players have fun playing them. I don't see any reason to believe that an MMO with meatier skill-based combat would necessarily be niche unless it went hand-in-hand with crazy shit like terrible graphics and perma-death.

Give me a Monster Hunter MMO!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 27, 2012, 02:21:07 AM
Creating cooperative content designed to be tackled by groups of varying skill-level players is not easy. I'm not even sure it's possible without some hidden stat* that gave buffs to "bad" players so that they could kill bosses or whatever with their skilled friends. In things like LoL and CoD the content is all PVP, so while you might have some noobs/bads on your team, the other team should have some too and the result is a fair fight.

In a PVE game, how do you solve the problem of not being able to invite your baddie friend to the raid because he just isn't good enough at the game? If you don't solve that problem, than you're limiting your audience to only people who are very good at games (and also have good hardware, low latency, etc.) and you end up with a niche title.

*which would be datamined by the community before the game's release, and exploited to hell as guilds spend hours suiciding before taking on a new boss.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 05:06:58 AM
The WoW challenge, and most MMO raiding (because it all ends up on spoiler sites) is about multiple people executing a complex strategy without screwing up / being skilled enough to cover when someone inevitably does screw up. It's hard because there's generally lots going on and lots of information to be tracking so you need to work out your personal variation on strategy and practice. That and talking shit on teamspeak before and after.

Unless things have changed a lot since Wrath.

What is the actual game in WoW? It's not figuring stuff out, it's not being good - is it just the willingness to grind rep and dailies and dungeons over and over? It seems that the skill of WoW is willingness to spend time playing WoW.

I think it's fair to say you are either an exceptional player or have no clue. The percentage of the player base that could do hard mode challenges in Wrath was extremely small. Indeed they only made sense expending development effort on because they represented an unachievable target for the majority and bragging rights for the capable.

Why you are arguing about threat meters I have no clue. Threat meters were included because guessing threat wasn't the challenge blizzard wanted to project, it forced DPS to take responsibility for threat management and it allowed them to increase the challenge encounters because it tightened the gap between the extremely skilled (who could intuitively calculate threat caps) and the mortals.

(once again, this is relative to wrath where I stopped playing, WoW is dead to me cause Cata exploded my guild).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 27, 2012, 06:19:05 AM
I think GW2's fractals of the mist with their increasing difficulty (and reward) might be "the next thing" in dungeons if it catches on. Also the fact that the individual fractals are relatively short you (meaning the developer) can add or remove them from the rotation easily making content updates more frequent (in theory atleast).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 06:27:20 AM
The percentage of the player base that could do hard mode challenges in Wrath was extremely small.

Isn't that a matter of having catassed long enough to have all the needed equipment, and having memorized like a human machine the routines you have to perform over and over and and the patterns to whack the moles in a timely fashion, more than a matter of skill?

This sounds snarky, but it's a honest question. MMORPGs where movement and aiming are non-factors keep feeling to me like exercises in becoming a better human macro, as there's no real room for talent or improvisation.

A possible counter-argument would be that that's a skill too, after all.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 27, 2012, 06:38:54 AM
If swtor had threat meters then Jedi Knights would have realised that taunts work when you have aggro way back in January. Everyone would have ended up happier.

I'm not a big fan of obfuscating anything about character abilities. Though some degree of obfuscation on NPC abilities is cool. I really don't mind looking up boss strategies and it gives the community something to figure out in downtime.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 06:48:54 AM
I feel the same. Because so far I've been only bashing on MMORPG hotbar combat, I feel the need to state that even though I don't love it, and I don't think it requires any special skill, I've enjoyed it for a long time in many games, and I think (as I stated so many times) it makes perfect sense that they'll keep developing games with such system, improving it or not, cause it's a valid bridge between turn-based combat (which is immortal) and skill-based action combat.

But nothing annoys me more than people, or even friends, going straight on Youtube as soon as you wipe in an instance to look up the walkthrough for the boss. That happens now all.the.time. And it makes me wonder what is their point, why do they even bother playing.



Edit to add more frustration:

Next step is probably a big red button integrated in the game UI that says "Show walkthrough" and just shows you how to beat the boss, with nifty ghost characters and big blinky markers on the ground and on the skills you have to activate in the right order. Nothing will be obfuscated, all you'll have to do will be focusing on performing perfectly (as a musician without any creativity), and players will start moaning and complaining about all the other games that don't have the "SOLVE ENCOUNTER" big red button integrated. Same way everyone now complains when there isn't a big huge tutorial telling you "GET GUN, SHOOT STUFF, ENEMIES ARE RED" because maaaan that's hard why should I even bother with this when there are other games that tell me that?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 06:50:14 AM
For an MMO WoW was relatively forgiving in gearing. The difference between extreme cat-ass and moderate was not that great compared to the difference in execution.

Your question doesn't work though. Skill is by definition memorization, optimisation and mastery gained through repetition / practice. Being able to do the top level WoW raids required skill.

But nothing annoys me more than people, or even friends, going straight on Youtube as soon as you wipe in an instance to look up the walkthrough for the boss. That happens now all.the.time. And it makes me wonder what is their point, why do they even bother playing.

Because for most people the fun is in execution and perfecting that rather than the trial and error of discovering how the encounter works. But that's a personal choice. Same reason I want to know the actual weapon numbers in planetside I guess.

For the purposes of discussion here's a WoW Wrath hard mode raid Firefighter Mimiron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jee971qfSMQ). This is a demonstration so it's a near optimal takedown and it looks a lot easier than it is when you're in the game. There's hundreds of ways this can go wrong and a group of average gamers trying to master the encounter are going to face-plant in all of them for a long time. The feeling when you get it down, for the first time and on a repeatable basis, is a feeling of achievement which is what MMO's can offer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 07:43:24 AM
But nothing annoys me more than people, or even friends, going straight on Youtube as soon as you wipe in an instance to look up the walkthrough for the boss. That happens now all.the.time. And it makes me wonder what is their point, why do they even bother playing.

Because for most people the fun is in execution and perfecting that rather than the trial and error of discovering how the encounter works. But that's a personal choice.

So we kind of agree that everything can be considered a skill. Playing the piano requires skill, so do crossword puzzles, or skeet shooting. But we also agree that when you put it like that then it's obvious that these games (or WoW) are somewhat deceiving about what it takes to be good at them, as they give you the illusion that you have lots of options, abilities, powers, freedom of movement, and eventually it all boils down to reading the script and executing it as a machine. Again, no room for improvisation, no room for creativity. "Skill is by definition memorization, optimisation and mastery gained through repetition / practice." you say, and I think that matches with what I said: WoW (and clones) is about training people in becoming human-macros, as the lack of "resolution" in the way actions are performed (like the million ways you can hit or miss a target in skeet shooting, or the million differences in the intensity you can push the key of a piano) doesn't leave any room for much other than "remember the script/don't remember the script", followed by attempts at perfectly executing it using a very simple non-analog instrument.

Now that I think about it, it makes sense. Rock Band is nothing but WoW with a different theme. Does that requires skill? Yeah. Does that require group coordination? Absolutely. Does that require memorizing a score? It's the whole point. Does that require whacking moles flawlessly as soon as they appear according to the score? You bet.

Conversely, hotbar MMORPGs are nothing but the computerized rendition of playing in a band, but only with super-ultra-very dumbed down musical instruments, and you are only allowed to play covers.

That definitely involves skill! At the same time, it wouldn't be bad to admit that it's more a fantasy-themed skill-based exercise, or a challenge, in routinization than any kind of skill-based combat. It takes a higher resolution for that, it takes more unpredictability, and it takes more possible outcomes to any given action in any given millisecond.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 27, 2012, 07:48:21 AM
For an MMO WoW was relatively forgiving in gearing.

the line quoted is in past tense so somewhat relevant: I would not call vanilla WOW that forgiving when you had to get the +resist sets (which weren't really useful elsewhere) for the raids. Luckily they got rid of that mentality relatively fast.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 27, 2012, 08:08:28 AM
You guys are arguing that Yo-yo Ma is less skilled than John Williams and any one can become Yo-yo Ma with enough practice, so his skill is worthless.  It's hilarious.  He needs things spelled out, there's no skill there.  :uhrr:

Not all people are creators and not all who practice can execute.

Quote from: Merusk
Obfuscation of core mechanics only helps small people think they lead accomplished lives through meaningless successes.

Defensive much? I could just as easily say that people who need everything spelled out for them, even things their own brains should be able to figure out with a small expenditure of actual effort, are either morons or incredibly lazy and want to feel like they are accomplishing something while performing at a level that would make a trained seal embarrassed.

Hidden information is an important and very valid aspect of game design, and there is a difference between information and mechanics that are genuinely obfuscated and information and mechanics that require player exploration to understand.

No, I'm not.  I stand behind the statement for what was being discussed at the time - hiding important information from the players that they just had to figure out for themselves.   You appear to be arguing something completely different.  The obfuscation that was being discussed was akin to pulling a person in to a stakes poker game and expecting them to "just figure it out."  That's not good for anyone but the people fleecing them.   

Yes, hidden information is important to the game of poker, but hiding the rules is not.  Raid mechanics are the rules of the game.  Execution and understanding of how to adapt your particular character to those rules.  Just because you read something doesn't mean you're an expert at it any more than memorizing the numerous systems to Blackjack means you're going to always walk away from the table a winner.  It takes practice and experience to get better at it and know how to apply it.

By your definition there's no skill to musicians, singers, carpentry, engineering, coding and a host of other things.  It's all simple rule systems you just have to apply like 'a trained seal' once you know the basics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 08:29:49 AM
Oh good, a retarded argument that MMOs do/do not require "skill" to play.  Next someone is going to break out the McDonalds of MMOs argument and then someone is going to bring up Fallen Earth.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on November 27, 2012, 08:31:20 AM
Who gives a shit if MMOs require skill of any kind to play. What matters is are they fun.

If TESO is fun then it'll do OK, if it isn't then it won't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 27, 2012, 08:33:25 AM
Who gives a shit if MMOs require skill of any kind to play. What matters is are they fun.

If TESO is fun then it'll do OK, if it isn't then it won't.

Generally speaking (with some exceptions), the skill part is what keeps me interested. Almost anything is fun for a little while due to its novelty factor, but I just don't have it in me anymore to buy a new MMO just for the novelty factor.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 08:46:41 AM
For clarity,

The argument is not if MMORPGs require skill or not. They obviously require skill, pretty much everything requires skill.

The argument was about hotbar combat and other forms of combat, and what kind of skill(s) they require.
Then it branched into obfuscating or not obfuscating things, and what kind of skill(s) and fun those two approaches enable.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 27, 2012, 08:58:43 AM
Have we done 'what makes a game a MMOG' yet?

That's a good one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 09:02:12 AM
Lately, with the obvious lack of discussions going on here (this pretty much being the only one active in more than a month, outside of some ongoing threads about specific games that don't have a subforum), and lots of products crossing borders all the time, I've been wondering if we have finally reached the point where a MMOG board is redundant, and it should be merged with the PC/Console Gaming (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?board=3.0) one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 09:08:22 AM
I wouldn't go that far.  MMORPGs are still a hobby for most people vs. Single Player games that are just played until beaten for the majority of those that buy them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 09:11:54 AM
But that board is not the "Single player" board, and there's plenty of multiplayer if not multiplayer-only games being discussed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 09:50:04 AM
But that board is not the "Single player" board, and there's plenty of multiplayer if not multiplayer-only games being discussed.

So?  They still aren't MMOGs.  I would guess a majority of the people on this board are always playing, or at least, aren't far from playing an MMORPG while playing a lot of the games in that section.  Hence an MMOG section.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 27, 2012, 09:57:11 AM
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORING.

(http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/LinneaRetina/2011/skyrim-horse.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 27, 2012, 12:37:20 PM
...eventually it all boils down to reading the script and executing it as a machine. Again, no room for improvisation, no room for creativity.

You could argue that, but you would be wrong.  To use DPS as an example (correctly regarded as the least challenging role) the skill, so to speak, is executing your script like a machine while simultaneously maximizing your time on target, compressing the DPS ramp-up time as much as possible to make the most efficient use of your time on target, making the most efficient use of short-term buffs, and decreasing the negative impact you have on the rest of the raid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2012, 01:49:14 PM
Yeah, the no room for improvisation and creativity thing just blows my mind. For one thing, if that's true of hotbar PVE, it's just as true of ALL PVE. Action combat is not more "creative". I mean seriously, what?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 01:50:58 PM
Action combat has a whole other variable of movement.  And not just standing in the fire.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2012, 01:53:29 PM
There's no movement in other games? :oh_i_see:

Are we seriously going to make the argument that adding double-tap dodge suddenly turns MMO combat into a Charlie Parker solo instead of a Glenn Miller one?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 02:49:36 PM
There's no movement in other games? :oh_i_see:

Are we seriously going to make the argument that adding double-tap dodge suddenly turns MMO combat into a Charlie Parker solo instead of a Glenn Miller one?

What?

In traditional DIKU hotbar combat you typically stand in one place using your rotation for dps or tanking only moving when there is a ground affect or there is a specific encounter design that forces you to group up at a certain time or shift in a certain direction.  The most skillful "action" you get is as a tank is positioning the boss so it doesn't cleave your group or moving to intercept adds.  The most skillful "action" you get as a dps is movement to stay on target and keep your dps time at max.  The most skillful "action" as a healer is actually the most involved, but it has nothing to do with your character, and more with moving your mouse around the UI clicking on boxes and reacting to icons.

In a twitchy, action based game, the most basic elements of combat ( attacking, dodging, blocking) require aiming and positioning that adds a complete additional layer of skill and involvement that I find much more pleasant.  This is in addition to everything I wrote above.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 27, 2012, 02:51:05 PM
There are quite a few raid and dungeon encounters that go way beyond that, and I'm not just talking about Heigan.

(then again, they are also the ones that lead to ridonkolous fun times when in pugs  :awesome_for_real:)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 02:51:47 PM
There's no movement in other games? :oh_i_see:

Are we seriously going to make the argument that adding double-tap dodge suddenly turns MMO combat into a Charlie Parker solo instead of a Glenn Miller one?

You are thinking in GW2 terms. I am are thinking in action RPG terms, which we all agree are not where the MMOs are but where some of us want MMOs to go to.
I am making the argument that movement in hotbar MMORPGs is mostly irrelevant other than for sandbox-explorative reasons. That's why I made the comparison with Rock Band.


EDIT: Added quote.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 02:57:01 PM
You are thinking in GW2 terms. I am are thinking in action RPG terms, which we all agree are not where the MMOs are but where some of us want MMOs to go to.
I am making the argument that movement in hotbar MMORPGs is mostly irrelevant other than for sandbox-explorative reasons. That's why I made the comparison with Rock Band.

I'm thinking of GW2?  I would call GW2 a hybrid though.  I would love the shit out of an MMO that uses something like Zelda's Ocarina of Time combat system and dungeon style.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on November 27, 2012, 03:03:12 PM
Yeah, you guys may want to stop citing GW2. GW2 is part of the trend to more action combat. It's not on the side of the hot bar tab targeting stand around crowd. Its part of the march Against that, and most of you have praised them for it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 03:04:55 PM
I'm confused.  I always praised GW2's combat as a step in the right direction, away from old hat hotbar combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 03:25:24 PM
I'm thinking of GW2?  

Not you. Ingmar, when he mentioned double tap as if our argument were based on that. And yes, I think it's a step in the right direction too, and I called it a bridge between the old hotbar combat and the evolution towards more action and meaningful movement/positioning/aiming.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2012, 04:53:18 PM
The part I'm really questioning is why you think action combat involves 'creativity'. My comparison to saxophone solos probably went over people's heads, sorry. (By way of explanation, Charlie Parker's solos were mostly/all improvised, while Glenn Miller was notorious for having all solos pre-written for his big band.)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 27, 2012, 05:17:05 PM
In a twitchy, action based game, the most basic elements of combat ( attacking, dodging, blocking) require aiming and positioning that adds a complete additional layer of skill and involvement that I find much more pleasant.  This is in addition to everything I wrote above.

And when you dodge that giant's club smashing into the ground, you could almost go so far as to say you're exhibiting remarkable skill in not standing in telegraphed area of effect attacks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 05:50:29 PM
Action combat has a whole other variable of movement.  And not just standing in the fire.

So do the raids like the one I linked. The whole raid is constantly moving and it must be fairly precise. It's also a bit more skilful than guitar hero because in guitar hero an error is done and gone. In WoW an error, like a healer being out of position and getting too many stacks of a debuff, can be either a failure or covered by other players dynamic reaction. And the window of time to observe, decide and act can be really quite tight. But probably not twitch level because it's more about tactics and there's online latency to consider.

The fact you think it's easy only means you probably haven't done it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 27, 2012, 06:11:33 PM
I think part of the discussion that seems to be unstated is PvP vs. PvE.  PvE is really almost always going to disproportionately reward understanding how the AI works, whether that is understanding a boss encounter, or just the general behaviors of AI.   A great deal of GW2 is based on PvP combat.  Dodging becomes a lot more interesting then you've not only got a guy casting a spell at you, but a guy who KNOWS you can dodge it, which might mean he tries to center the spell towards where you will dodge, but then YOU know he might do that, and so forth.  That sort of "dance" is always going to be more interesting to me, from a gameplay perspective, than the most complex choreographed dance I need to do for a raid.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 27, 2012, 06:26:18 PM
The part I'm really questioning is why you think action combat involves 'creativity'. My comparison to saxophone solos probably went over people's heads, sorry. (By way of explanation, Charlie Parker's solos were mostly/all improvised, while Glenn Miller was notorious for having all solos pre-written for his big band.)

I never used the word creative.  I just think action, or twitchy combat, adds another layer of skill in the game and in turn that makes the game more enjoyable for me.  

And when you dodge that giant's club smashing into the ground, you could almost go so far as to say you're exhibiting remarkable skill in not standing in telegraphed area of effect attacks.

I would agree with that in most respects, and I never said both forms of combat are worlds apart.  But that usually only matters during special attacks or scripted events.  In action combat your gameplay is just that.


So do the raids like the one I linked. The whole raid is constantly moving and it must be fairly precise. It's also a bit more skilful than guitar hero because in guitar hero an error is done and gone. In WoW an error, like a healer being out of position and getting too many stacks of a debuff, can be either a failure or covered by other players dynamic reaction. And the window of time to observe, decide and act can be really quite tight. But probably not twitch level because it's more about tactics and there's online latency to consider.

The fact you think it's easy only means you probably haven't done it.


You're putting words in my mouth because I never said it was easy or that it lacked skill or you can compare WOW to Guitar Hero.  I agree with you 100% in that raid encounters, especially high end ones, are incredibly difficult and success is balanced on a razor thin edge.  They require high amounts of coordination and effort.

My point is if you added twitch combat to it, it would make the menial task of "press button, make affect" more interesting for me.  I enjoy the task of aiming and positioning my attacks.  

I want TERA's combat in my MMOs.  I really enjoyed tanking and dps in that game.  That act of manipulating my character and performing abilities was satisfying in its own right.  In hotbar combat I don't get the same satisfaction of performing my rotation.

Edit:  Shit, I want Dark Souls combat in my MMOs.  What I want, essentially, is for some MMORPGs to begin to blend open persistent world games with arcade style play.  I'm tired of having 2-3 banks of hotbars with abilities that I have to hit in order.  I love the raiding aspect of the games where it takes teamwork, concentration and effort, but I want the basics of combat to go away from hotbars and keypresses.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 27, 2012, 06:28:30 PM
A lot of the things you're saying you didn't say, Falc did, and those responses are (or were originally) directed at him.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on November 27, 2012, 06:31:44 PM
Holy crap all this threat meter discussion makes me want to cry.

It doesn't matter if the threat meter is hidden or in plain view, if your game has a threat meter it's terrible.  It leads to very static and formulaic combat, which (at least for me) makes it extremely boring.  Don't heal too much, don't do too much damage, etc...

Threat needs to have a good deal of randomness to it to make sure every fight isn't the exact same way, force you to pay attention and adjust to changing circumstances.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 27, 2012, 06:36:49 PM
In action based combat you can win some fights due to manual ability, reflexes, and/or creative unscripted manouvering and thinking, for sure. That's how I see it. EDIT: We can call it "unscripted" if we decide that "creative" is really not a good word for it. Dark Souls is a perfect example but Dark Souls is probably one of the best games ever made so it's probably aiming too high. But sure, that's the target. Unscripted combat where there is room for so many more layers of player direct input than, in my opinion, in hotbar tab-targeted combat.

Also, solo pve hotbar combat is WAY easier than any Guitar Hero game. On the other hand, I compared group instances and raiding to Rock Band (group coordination) not Guitar hero. The difference is important.

EDIT: plenty.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 27, 2012, 07:19:52 PM
For the purposes of discussion here's a WoW Wrath hard mode raid Firefighter Mimiron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jee971qfSMQ). This is a demonstration so it's a near optimal takedown and it looks a lot easier than it is when you're in the game.

Yeah, sorry, this looks dull as shit and is literally "don't stand in the fire."

The "skill" here is basically the same as in every raid ever - know which spot to move to when. (And herding cats, which is really the main skill of every raid encounter) Go watch a video of the Ifrit fight in FFXIV - it's basically the exact same fight! Which makes sense given that there is so little to the mechanics. Nearly every raid boils down to "don't stand in the fire" because there just aren't that many ways to demonstrate skill in a combat system so basic. Positioning doesn't really matter (outside of not standing in fires), there's no active dodging or blocking (outside of moving out from spawning fires), not much in terms of movement options (other than running away from fires).

"How do we make this enemy hard?" is a pretty difficult question to answer in a game where combat is so limited and execution is trivial.

Quote from: KallDrexx
It doesn't matter if the threat meter is hidden or in plain view, if your game has a threat meter it's terrible.  It leads to very static and formulaic combat, which (at least for me) makes it extremely boring.  Don't heal too much, don't do too much damage, etc...

Threat needs to have a good deal of randomness to it to make sure every fight isn't the exact same way, force you to pay attention and adjust to changing circumstances.

Agree 100%. I've said for a quite a while that the ability of players to exactly dictate how combat works out is a huge limiting factor in MMOs. I think the stories and fun times people remember most from MMOs are the times when crazy shit happened, yet the systems of MMOs are dedicated to players exactly controlling the experience such that crazy shit can't happen. To some degree things like Rifts are an attempt to counter this but at a different strata.

With more randomized threat players would have to think on their feet, organize on the fly, hybrid types would be more viable, redundancy of roles more viable, etc.

In other words WoW players would hate it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 27, 2012, 07:53:02 PM
Quote
But nothing annoys me more than people, or even friends, going straight on Youtube as soon as you wipe in an instance to look up the walkthrough for the boss. That happens now all.the.time. And it makes me wonder what is their point, why do they even bother playing.

Talking to people super into WoW makes it clear that some people are just wired differently.

When you get to a raid in WoW you try, you die, you learn from experience, you try again. Depending on how quickly you adapt and how well you can recover from a bad situation this process can take a widely variable amount of time. Let's call this phase 1.

Next you get to the phase where you know what to do to some extent and you do it, while trying to optimize so that it becomes safer and faster. You can fall into local minima here and this phase can last forever if you don't have outside knowledge. You may have hit on a pretty good strategy that is different from the optimal one. (Phase 2)

Finally you reach the phase where you know exactly what to do and just try to execute on that - at this point the only way to fail is to botch the execution. You know the global optimal solution, or at least the best known solution. (Phase 3)

To me phase 3 is the least interesting phase. It's the phase where the encounter becomes rote. But that's the phase WoW players want to skip directly to! Anything else is erroneously termed "obfuscation" apparently.

And that's fine. People can play and like WoW. But one WoW is enough. (Or, more accurately, one WoW and 50 bad clones) What I don't get is why every game has to be WoW and why branching away from that has to be a niche effort. It strikes me as some guy who is super into Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles the arcade game saying God of War will be niche because the fighting is too involved and people just want to keep putting in quarters and mashing buttons.

The fact that WoW is successful and has lousy combat doesn't mean lousy combat is the reason it's successful. And so far AFAIK there isn't a game that has much better combat in the context of a game that rivals WoW. You can point to a game like Planetside and say "see it has twitch combat and it's not that popular" but on the other hand it's Planetside.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 08:22:18 PM

Yes, that's how it goes. And by the time phase 3 has begun to bore the next tier of content is out to replace it. So the people still stuck in phase 1 and 2 can keep going, probably with a boost from some low-hanging fruit from the new content, and the people who have mastered and farmed it move on.

It's also why a raid oriented game needs a regular addition of more content.

Yeah, sorry, this looks dull as shit and is literally "don't stand in the fire."

The "skill" here is basically the same as in every raid ever - know which spot to move to when.

Yes, and FPS games are putting the crosshair over the man and push button. Everything looks easy when being demonstrated by skilled people from an eagle eye view. When you're at ground level tracking your mana, your cooldowns, your aggro, your team, the enemy, the enemies attacks, patches of fire and your own positioning it becomes a pretty high skill game. And the stats for this are available because a very small number of players achieved the reward for completing all hard modes.

And AFAIK I know bumping up the raid difficulty in Cata helped lose them a couple of million people.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 27, 2012, 09:03:38 PM
Yes, and FPS games are putting the crosshair over the man and push button. Everything looks easy when being demonstrated by skilled people from an eagle eye view. When you're at ground level tracking your mana, your cooldowns, your aggro, your team, the enemy, the enemies attacks, patches of fire and your own positioning it becomes a pretty high skill game.

Almost everything takes skill. The question is what kind of skill, what range of skill, is that skill an interesting and worthwhile thing to test, etc.

Sure, you can make "don't stand in the fire" REALLY hard if the fire is big and spawns really fast, and thus beating that encounter requires more skill of some sort, but that doesn't make it particular interesting or strategic.

An FPS has a lot of different ways for a game to introduce skill tests and strategy. You don't just put a crosshair over a guy and shoot them. You move, often with a physics based movement system. You jump around. You use terrain in a variety of ways. You use strategies that take advantage of sight lines. The game may have active dodging or an Unreal style teleporter or whatever. And you can also not stand in fire and manage ammo and keep track of your position and that of the enemy.

In an MMO like WoW there just aren't many things that a player can actually do that matter, so the things you can test are relatively low. Players can move so you can make them move out of fire. They can use abilities so you can make them use the right abilities at the right time. But they don't have to really aim their abilities, so you can't test that or anything that goes along with that like leading a target and movement prediction. They can't dash or dodge or roll or do anything movement-related except for a basic run and jump, so while you can test their ability to not stand in fire you can't test much else. Positioning tends to not matter at a base gameplay level so you can't test that without shoehorning it into the raid mechanics.

You can tune numbers so that an encounter takes more skill via a smaller margin for error but that's not the same as making a game interesting. There's nothing interesting about Battletoads or those crazy Mario romhacks, even though they are hard as hell.

The number of ways a WoW encounter can test skill is low because the number of meaningful things players can do in combat is low. By the way this is the exact reason Arkham City boss fights are so terrible. Against a non-human-sized single enemy there's just not many ways you can meaningfully interact.

Quote
And AFAIK I know bumping up the raid difficulty in Cata helped lose them a couple of million people.

WoW is an old game with a well-established audience with certain expectations. Getting 6 years into WoW then sitting around a design roundtable saying "hey guys, our game is kind of simple, maybe we should make the fights take more strategy" is silly. That doesn't mean other designs can't work, just that swapping designs that late in the game doesn't work.

Edit: Primary point again: give me an MMO with more interesting combat. What I consider "more interesting" is very broad.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 27, 2012, 11:46:37 PM

In an MMO like WoW there just aren't many things that a player can actually do that matter, so the things you can test are relatively low.

heh, you must be kidding.

You're just extremely biased. The encounter I linked took 10 minutes just to discuss the positioning and tactics and each character has to be tracking a lot of variables and using multiple abilities it didn't even mention. In most shooters you have a tiny number of abilities, your interaction with others is far more limited and environmental effects you need to react to are miniscule. Planetside 2 is much more basic tactically than WoW raiding.

What it does have is the adrenaline and twitch of tracking fast moving targets, which is fun. And if you want that then you don't want an MMO. PS2 is laggy, the field is so large that battles are dispersed and unstructured and the free movement means it tends to be imbalanced zerg rolling over defenders or empty bases. There are already more than enough shooters that provide good twitch action we don't need MMO's aping them.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on November 28, 2012, 12:03:44 AM
There's also a lot more than just 'don't stand in 234 different kinds of fire' that may not be evident in the video. There are also adds to manage, 3 different segments of the boss to target and attack (not all available all the time), I seem to recall there being drops that people have to pick up and use, etc. It's an extremely complicated fight, well beyond just the ground effects everywhere.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 28, 2012, 12:32:02 AM
And like I said before, there are quite a few encounters that break the mold. We're not in Molten Core anymore, etc. Just off the top of my head (I'm not even a raider, so I'm sure I'm missing quite a few):
- enemies using player-scale abilities without an aggro table and some rudimentary reaction scripts (cleanse debuffs from friendlies, CC enemy healers, focus fire the squishiest targets): BRD fight in the tier0.5 questline, Priestess Delrissa and friends, Faction Champions
- encounters with arcade elements: Alysrazor (you get to play Starfox flying through the air through random fire rings), Vizier whatshisface (he starts shooting very large numbers of random-moving / bouncing projectiles at one point, just like dodging shots in 'bullet hell' games), Zon'ozz (have to bounce a ping-pong ball between players for a long time and then bounce it into the boss, making sure it doesn't hit too many or too few people and it rebounds at the right angle), Saboteur mantid boss (places bombs that explode in bomberman-like patterns). Actually there are a lot of such encounters while leveling up / questing too, but they're so easy and impossible to fail that I'm not sure they count...
- positioning requirements: Vizier whatshisface targets someone in the raid and channels a high-damage attack on them; the tank must interpose between the boss and the target to save them. The Will of the Emperor fight has the tanks dodge combo attacks from the bosses they're tanking - afaik these are randomized, so you have to watch their movement to dodge in the right direction. If you dodge 5 in a row, you get to do a 1million damage attack on the boss; if you fail to dodge, you get an armor debuff that makes you much harder to heal. Also in the brewery dungeon there are mobs that constantly channel healing beams between themselves - players must interpose between these beams so they get healed instead of the mobs. There are several mobs in MOP that have a directional shield, so you have to attack them from a certain side.

In fact, positioning and non-scripted movement is one of the most important things in high-end WOW arena PVP (putting aside the lulzy class balance issues) if we're comparing FPS pvp to MMO pvp. If we're comparing MMO pve to FPS pve, well... I don't remember Global Agenda's pve being too fun or interesting at all.


e: 7/11 WOW classes have some sort of combat movement ability on short cooldowns (the rest 'just' have various ways to increase movement speed). Mages can blink forward, druids can choose to blink forward / teleport to an enemy / teleport to a friendly, hunters can disengage (fly backwards), rogues can shadowstep, warlocks have a personal teleport and a group portal (they can set exit/entrance), monks have dodge rolling and a personal teleport, warriors have various charge (friendly / enemy) abilities and a targeted leap attack.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 28, 2012, 01:07:53 AM
There's also a lot more than just 'don't stand in 234 different kinds of fire' that may not be evident in the video. There are also adds to manage, 3 different segments of the boss to target and attack (not all available all the time), I seem to recall there being drops that people have to pick up and use, etc. It's an extremely complicated fight, well beyond just the ground effects everywhere.

Almost any other game can do all of this and more.

Quote
- enemies using player-scale abilities without an aggro table and some rudimentary reaction scripts (cleanse debuffs from friendlies, CC enemy healers, focus fire the squishiest targets): BRD fight in the tier0.5 questline, Priestess Delrissa and friends, Faction Champions
- encounters with arcade elements:
...

And these as well.

I want to make a distinction between base gameplay mechanics and individual boss gimmicks. Flying around like in Starfox, dodging bouncing balls, etc, are not base game mechanics in WoW, they are boss gimmicks. (I'm using gimmicks in the non-pejorative sense) It's cool that there is a boss where you have to dodge left or right 5 times in a row I guess, but dodging attacks like that matters in what percentage of WoW encounters? 0.01%? In a game where dodging is part of the core combat system you can dodge a variety of attacks from a variety of enemies at almost any time - not that there is one specific enemy that has what is a basically a QTE built into it.

In a way a lot of these boss battles are one-off separate mini-games or puzzles where the designers brainstorm ways to uniquely script them to keep them interesting because standard combat is too limited.


Quote from: Kageru
There are already more than enough shooters that provide good twitch action we don't need MMO's aping them.

What a weird defensive reaction. Not only do you want WoW to be the way it is you demand that literally every MMO play in your preferred style. We don't need MMOs with decent combat? I disagree - I need that. And some MMO is going to nail the combat along with other stuff and a bunch of other people are also going to agree.

It's one thing to personally prefer something but demanding that every MMO match that preference (and that none match mine) is absurd.

There are already plenty of shitty boring RPGs with bland combat - so why do we need MMOs?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 28, 2012, 01:16:59 AM
I always thought "creative raiding" lead to emergency patches and bans.  :why_so_serious:
In my experience most MMOs do not appreciate creative ways of defeating raid encounters...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on November 28, 2012, 02:08:46 AM
Funny, I seem to remember the Faction Champions fight in TotGC being one of the most universally-loathed boss encounters in WoW's history.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 28, 2012, 02:31:52 AM
Funny, I seem to remember the Faction Champions fight in TotGC being one of the most universally-loathed boss encounters in WoW's history.
Not a coincidence.  :why_so_serious: I personally loved the encounter (and the similar 5-man "pvp-ish" encounters), but I admit I'm a crazy outlier in this.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on November 28, 2012, 02:53:58 AM
I always thought "creative raiding" lead to emergency patches and bans.  :why_so_serious:
In my experience most MMOs do not appreciate creative ways of defeating raid encounters...

This is my thought as well. I took a long break from classic MMO and visited GW2...eh...everyone's being 'creative' is a given.
The mobs are certainly 'creative' enough. Doesn't seem to be an aggro table anywhere. Fuckers hit at random, and hit hard. No targeted healing means no blaming of healers.
And the trash are really trash. Trash that's just there to slow you down, and barely reward you. Dodge mechanics that seems to reward paying attention, except with all the spell effects going off at melee range (can't be turned off), how anyone can dodge well is dependent on their eye tolerance level. I certainly can't keep up with 5 AoEs going off every 5 seconds.

Till this day, I still wondered if standing still in Twilight Arbor, shooting at tree boss, dodging red circle every 15 seconds is the 'legit' way of doing it. I tried walking up to the tree boss before, only to get insta-gibbed.

Then Citadel of Flame, where people were supposed to survive waves of mobs, while taking out just acolytes during an event turned into - 'ok hit the acolyte, then run out of the room, till they respawn, then hit them again.'

Like I said, I'm not expecting static, tank n spank, but most of GW2 encounters were too 'creative'. There's always that feeling of randomness attached to it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 28, 2012, 03:00:08 AM
Yes, and FPS games are putting the crosshair over the man and push button.

You love to miss the point where your crosshair can go in a million different places of the screen, instead than just on the enemy, before you can push that one on/off (fire/nonfire) button. The skill is actually trying to make sure the crosshair is on that one pixel that is the enemy instead of on any of the other million ones on screen. While moving.

In both games you push one or a few more digital (so, just on and off) button to hit and perform, but in FPSs your mouse hand has to fight every single millisecond not to be in the wrong part of the screen whereas 99.9% of it is the wrong part of the screen. And this is while you and your enemies are moving and you probably are too.

That concept stays true for games like Dark Souls (more) and Tera (less) too, although to a much much lower degree than FPS. That's why Guild Wars 2 is a welcome bridge towards a different playstyle and different skill ceilings. It's not even the dodge function in GW2 that raises the bar, it's the fact that you can miss attacks, and waste resources, if you are not positioned properly at all times. Far from perfect, but a step in the way of more active and unpredictable kinds of combat (see rk47 post right above this...).

I'll say it again, all mechanics (hotbar tab targeted, targetless, pure action, RTS, FPS) require skill, and they certainly are all cool for different people. I am just saying that some games require such a constant and free-hand/free-form amount of player input that the room for mistakes or for sheer levels of technique is insanely high, as opposed to games where you mostly have a limited amount of switches and you just have to make sure to flip them in the required order and timing. Still skill, but the skill ceiling is lower.

So when we talk about PvE in MMORPGs, and just PvE because PvP is a different story, some of us would love for the skill ceiling to be raised a bit, especially in solo playing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 28, 2012, 05:26:35 AM

It's actually mostly from Yahtzee.

It's just a difference between twitch skill and tactical skill. One of them is more adrenal and one of them generally slower moving and more thought out, especially because you are supposed to integrate with others.

We'll see both, there's lots of MMOFPS on the way, but I think most of them will be terrible because a lot of attributes that make a good shooter don't gain from an MMO environment. And much of what makes an MMO interest, like co-operating, complex strategies and character synergies doesn't gain much from twitch. Indeed it tends to make execution really random, lag dependent and annoying. Which has been proven many times when they've had extremely gamey mechanics.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 08:27:00 AM
Yes, and FPS games are putting the crosshair over the man and push button.

You love to miss the point where your crosshair can go in a million different places of the screen, instead than just on the enemy, before you can push that one on/off (fire/nonfire) button. The skill is actually trying to make sure the crosshair is on that one pixel that is the enemy instead of on any of the other million ones on screen. While moving.

In both games you push one or a few more digital (so, just on and off) button to hit and perform, but in FPSs your mouse hand has to fight every single millisecond not to be in the wrong part of the screen whereas 99.9% of it is the wrong part of the screen. And this is while you and your enemies are moving and you probably are too.

That concept stays true for games like Dark Souls (more) and Tera (less) too, although to a much much lower degree than FPS. That's why Guild Wars 2 is a welcome bridge towards a different playstyle and different skill ceilings. It's not even the dodge function in GW2 that raises the bar, it's the fact that you can miss attacks, and waste resources, if you are not positioned properly at all times. Far from perfect, but a step in the way of more active and unpredictable kinds of combat (see rk47 post right above this...).

I'll say it again, all mechanics (hotbar tab targeted, targetless, pure action, RTS, FPS) require skill, and they certainly are all cool for different people. I am just saying that some games require such a constant and free-hand/free-form amount of player input that the room for mistakes or for sheer levels of technique is insanely high, as opposed to games where you mostly have a limited amount of switches and you just have to make sure to flip them in the required order and timing. Still skill, but the skill ceiling is lower.

So when we talk about PvE in MMORPGs, and just PvE because PvP is a different story, some of us would love for the skill ceiling to be raised a bit, especially in solo playing.


It boils down to this, when you see Dodge, Miss, Parry, Block, Hit in your combat log, is it a formula that predicted whether or not you dodged/parry etc?  Or was it player input?

That's the basic argument. No one is saying there aren't some super hard fuck raid encounters in games that require massive intense concentration from 20 people.  Traditionally, a very small percentage of the game actually deals with that kind of gameplay.  Like Margalis said, we're talking about core mechanics.  In Dark Souls/Tera it's part of gameplay every section, in WOW the action stuff has to be scripted in.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 28, 2012, 08:40:21 AM
Also I would point out that FPS is a genre I don't particular like and the idea of an FPS MMO doesn't appeal to me all that much. Twitch does not mean first person shooter, nor does more combat depth even mean twitch. I just want to find the activity I spend most of my time doing engaging.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 08:44:15 AM
Also I would point out that FPS is a genre I don't particular like and the idea of an FPS MMO doesn't appeal to me all that much. Twitch does not mean first person shooter, nor does more combat depth even mean twitch. I just want to find the activity I spend most of my time doing engaging.

Exactly, I'm not an FPS fan much at all.  I'll probably buy one every 3-4 years (I think the last two I bought was CoD2 and BF3?).

But the key point quoted above is bolded.  In some games I find the action of killing 10-15 bears fun because the action of killing is enjoyable.  In WOW the act of killing 10-15 bears is boring as shit, but you do it because you get the payday at the end.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 28, 2012, 08:49:46 AM

Nah, you kill the same mob with the same tactics for a hundred hours it gets boring in either. See borderlands for proof of that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 08:53:56 AM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on November 28, 2012, 09:15:22 AM
And therein lies the crux of everyone's bitch.

Put in all the things you guys think you want, you'll still complain because you never grok that you've just done it for a hundred hours prior to that point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 28, 2012, 09:21:45 AM
That is a big part of why MMOGs ideally need some worldy elements, be they crafting, resource gathering, auction houses, whatever. You need something for players to divert into while still existing in the game's social structure.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on November 28, 2012, 11:04:23 AM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.
Then what's the point of an MMO focusing heavily on a better combat system if the novelty will have worn off before you hit max level?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 12:52:15 PM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.
Then what's the point of an MMO focusing heavily on a better combat system if the novelty will have worn off before you hit max level?

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

While having a more engaging combat system adds more entertainment for me, you still have to have a fucking game built around it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 28, 2012, 03:03:56 PM
I think GW2's fractals of the mist with their increasing difficulty (and reward) might be "the next thing" in dungeons if it catches on.

Sheesh let's hope not. Such a divisive design is insane. The devs realized this too late and are now scrambling trying to figure out a solution that doesn't fracture their user base even worse than it currently is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on November 28, 2012, 03:16:54 PM
The mistake there was making personal difficulty segment you from other players.  Or playing with others prevent you from advancing.  Either way.  The fractals themselves are really fun.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on November 28, 2012, 03:31:52 PM
FWIW I'm completely ok with running low-level fractals even if/when I get to level 30 or whatever the leet doods are going for (just as I was ok with running low-level task forces on my max-level incarnate defender in COH instead of the incarnate taskforces). I'm pretty sure this is an anomaly when compared to random_diku_player_01, though.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: satael on November 28, 2012, 03:37:04 PM
I think GW2's fractals of the mist with their increasing difficulty (and reward) might be "the next thing" in dungeons if it catches on.

Sheesh let's hope not. Such a divisive design is insane. The devs realized this too late and are now scrambling trying to figure out a solution that doesn't fracture their user base even worse than it currently is.


The difficulty level should be more up to the players, not just according to the lowest one in the group. What I meant was that by ever-increasing difficulty you create (the illusion of) more content with relatively little work and somrthing that will probably challenge even the most hardcore players (while giving the highest difficulty level achieved as something to brag about)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 28, 2012, 03:40:40 PM
I want to make a distinction between base gameplay mechanics and individual boss gimmicks. Flying around like in Starfox, dodging bouncing balls, etc, are not base game mechanics in WoW, they are boss gimmicks. (I'm using gimmicks in the non-pejorative sense) It's cool that there is a boss where you have to dodge left or right 5 times in a row I guess, but dodging attacks like that matters in what percentage of WoW encounters? 0.01%? In a game where dodging is part of the core combat system you can dodge a variety of attacks from a variety of enemies at almost any time - not that there is one specific enemy that has what is a basically a QTE built into it.

This is what it comes down to for me as well. All the fights Zetor detailed were loads of fun, but they represent a very small amount of the content in WoW (or any MMO). I agree that the raid content in WoW still offers enough refreshing mechanics to make up for base gameplay that has gotten stale, but how does that help you if you aren't raiding? SWTOR and Rift may have awesome raid content, but the only thing 99.9% of players are going to experience is the boring game that comes before that. The good part of the game that doesn't put you to sleep can't come after 50-90 levels and hundreds of hours of boring static combat if this genre wants to grow rather than decline.

Creating a combat system that is fun and refreshing from level 1 is the next logical step, not adding distractions to leveling content (similar to raiding) that attempt to make you forgot how boring what you are doing actually is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 28, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.

Except that this isn't true.  I played way more Counter Strike than that without ever getting bored.  Hell, I Might still play 1.6 if I hadn't had a gaming hiatus for a few years at its height and only come back to gaming after source was out.  If you include source and now GO, I've been playing Counter Strike for literally over a decade and I've never grown "bored" of it.  I play other games sure, for the sake of variety, but it is always installed, and more or less regularly played for me.  Same thing with Starcraft / Starcraft 2.  If you include TFC/TF2 in the mix, it is also another one with thousands of hours (and if TF2 hasn't gone looney tunes with the weapons, I'd probably still be playing it regularly).  It just plain isn't so that games MUST get boring.  They get boring when they are only fun for their content, but not their mechanics - which is what this whole discussion is about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on November 28, 2012, 03:51:14 PM


You love to miss the point where your crosshair can go in a million different places of the screen, instead than just on the enemy,


I suppose that would be a problem, if you were a fucking spastic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 04:27:31 PM
Well no fucking shit.  You do anything for a few hundred hours you're going to be bored.

Except that this isn't true.  I played way more Counter Strike than that without ever getting bored.  Hell, I Might still play 1.6 if I hadn't had a gaming hiatus for a few years at its height and only come back to gaming after source was out.  If you include source and now GO, I've been playing Counter Strike for literally over a decade and I've never grown "bored" of it.  I play other games sure, for the sake of variety, but it is always installed, and more or less regularly played for me.  Same thing with Starcraft / Starcraft 2.  If you include TFC/TF2 in the mix, it is also another one with thousands of hours (and if TF2 hasn't gone looney tunes with the weapons, I'd probably still be playing it regularly).  It just plain isn't so that games MUST get boring.  They get boring when they are only fun for their content, but not their mechanics - which is what this whole discussion is about.

 :uhrr:

Right, so you missed the whole point.

Hint: I'm not saying playing a game for hundreds of hours automatically gets boring.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on November 28, 2012, 04:31:37 PM

Nah, you kill the same mob with the same tactics for a hundred hours it gets boring in either. See borderlands for proof of that.

It's possible Borderlands is actually just a bland game, and that the combat system can't save it from eventually becoming boring. I don't think anyone here has been arguing that a good combat system automatically makes a good game, though it's certainly a part of it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 28, 2012, 04:53:06 PM

Perhaps we can think of other twitchy MMO's where that doesn't save them. How's Firefall Red 5 going?

I mean is dodge in GW2 actually "fun"? Not particularly to my mind. It just means I'm expected to spot what are often extremely ambiguous "you should dodge now" animations.

Except that this isn't true.  I played way more Counter Strike than that without ever getting bored.

PvP works somewhat differently because the other players add a lot of variation and complexity. Plus the rounds are generally short so you get the satisfaction of "you ownzored!" to keep you motivated. It's also partly why planetside is ultimately unsatisfying.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 28, 2012, 05:51:58 PM

PvP works somewhat differently because the other players add a lot of variation and complexity. Plus the rounds are generally short so you get the satisfaction of "you ownzored!" to keep you motivated. It's also partly why planetside is ultimately unsatisfying.

True, but AI is always getting better.  I cited Darkfall a few pages back - the monsters in that game act in much more interesting ways than your typical MMORPG AI. Even the ones who do nothing more than swing an axe will run around a bit, go get friends to help, etc.  That has more interesting combat as well, although as I mentioned in my other post, it is a bit buggy/wonky at times, at least when I was playing it.  I'm not saying Darkfall is the perfect model for MMORPG combat, but it strikes me as an obvious example in which PvE content was a lot more interesting due to both the combat mechanics and the AI which made things more unpredictable.  These concepts could certainly be improved upon and used in other games. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on November 28, 2012, 07:42:25 PM
To you interesting, to me incredibly annoying and tedious to solo because they kite all over the place and share aggro while still having the typical NPC large health pools. Not that I played it for long.

Since a lot of the pleasure in MMO's is in refining execution some number of people will not find that an improvement. Though it made sense in Darkfall because the PvE was terrible and meant to be training for PvP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 28, 2012, 07:50:46 PM
To you interesting, to me incredibly annoying and tedious to solo because they kite all over the place and share aggro while still having the typical NPC large health pools. Not that I played it for long.

Since a lot of the pleasure in MMO's is in refining execution some number of people will not find that an improvement. Though it made sense in Darkfall because the PvE was terrible and meant to be training for PvP.


Well, I'm not saying it was perfect, I am just saying that there is some precedent for AI that works differently and that there is nothing about the genre that means the AI has to work the way it conventionally does. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 28, 2012, 11:00:40 PM

Perhaps we can think of other twitchy MMO's where that doesn't save them.

There haven't been any good ones.  TERA was a terrible game but it's combat made the game actually fun to play and kept me interested far longer than the game should have.  All it did though was show me that I could use some arcade action in my MMOs.

edit to add:

Quote

I mean is dodge in GW2 actually "fun"? Not particularly to my mind. It just means I'm expected to spot what are often extremely ambiguous "you should dodge now" animations.

Yes it is fun.  When I went back to play the Rift expansion I kept hitting my dodge button.  Just like any other arcade/action game.  You dodge to avoid an attack.  But you're getting too meta and picking one aspect and thinking that's the whole thing.  It's simply not just "dodge" its a culmination of things.

In GW2:
I can dodge and get out of the way.
I can swing a weapon without a target and do damage.
I can turn my character slightly and miss with an attack. (sometimes)
If someone runs in front of me they might get hit by my attack instead of my target.

Those are just a few things. and GW2's system is only a hybrid.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 29, 2012, 01:51:39 AM
From what I played of Tera it's a pretty terrible game outside of combat. Not really fair to point at a game that does nearly everything poorly as proof that the one thing it does well is a problem.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 29, 2012, 08:50:59 AM
From what I played of Tera it's a pretty terrible game outside of combat. Not really fair to point at a game that does nearly everything poorly as proof that the one thing it does well is a problem.

I don't understand.  I'm just pointing out that the combat in TERA is what kept me playing the game after the first 5 minutes of trying it.  What that says to me is that if a studio took the twitch combat of TERA and built an actual decent game around it, then it would be awesome.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 29, 2012, 09:06:59 AM
Looks to me like you two (we three) agree.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 29, 2012, 09:15:41 AM
That's what I thought.

Anyway, I just want my space twitch shooter and I can quit being an elf or a dwarf.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 29, 2012, 09:19:26 AM
Planetside, TR, Hellgate, global agenda, MWO and planetside 2?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on November 29, 2012, 09:30:36 AM
Planetside 2 does plenty of things right when it comes to twitching the MMO space. But not everyone is into pure PvPing. Same for Planetside 1.
Tabula Rasa was horrible and not available anymore because of that, like Auto Assault, and Hellgate London belongs in the other forum like Diablo 3.

Global Agenda is the only title that makes sense mentioning when it comes to twitch sci-fi MMO. Too bad it was a worse MMO than Tera on all accounts, but it's a start and definitely something I'd love to see someone improve over. Global Agenda 2 might be really worth checking, if they don't mess it up too much with the money grab of RMT, but it needs lots of help in the PvE department, and possibly less instanced content, in order to even get close to what some of us are wishing for.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 29, 2012, 09:39:44 AM
Planetside, TR, Hellgate, global agenda, MWO and planetside 2?

I'm not a huge FPS kinda guy like I said, but PS is a great game to a lot of people.  I never really played so I can't comment.  TR was interesting for a limited time but it was broken.  Hellgate I never bothered with, but it wasn't really an MMO.  I had a lot of fun with Global Agenda for a short period of time.  Then I got bored. 

I want a persistent world and some PVE in my games.  Of that list only TR had that.  I actually enjoyed that game, but I never got really deep into it to see the fail personally.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on November 29, 2012, 12:25:49 PM
How was hellgate not an mmo if guild wars is?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 29, 2012, 12:30:51 PM
I don't consider GW1 an MMO in the same fashion.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on November 29, 2012, 07:12:07 PM
Looks to me like you two (we three) agree.

That's no excuse to stop arguing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 30, 2012, 03:08:56 PM
But they don't have to really aim their abilities, so you can't test that or anything that goes along with that like leading a target and movement prediction.

Added in 5.0. (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=115073)

Of course, if the operative words here are simply leading and target prediction, then Iron Grenades (http://www.wowhead.com/item=4390#created-by-spell).

They can't dash or dodge or roll or do anything movement-related except for a basic run and jump, so while you can test their ability to not stand in fire you can't test much else.

Umm, literally every class in WoW has some sort of untargeted "move faster" ability on a short cooldown now, most have had these abilities since 2004.  Two of these abilities are actually named dash and roll, dash has been in since the original game launch.

Positioning tends to not matter at a base gameplay level so you can't test that without shoehorning it into the raid mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPJumGFCuEI


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on November 30, 2012, 05:34:28 PM
Now that's just an ignorant post.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 30, 2012, 10:11:30 PM
Would you prefer it in bullet points?

Almost everything takes skill. The question is what kind of skill, what range of skill, is that skill an interesting and worthwhile thing to test, etc.

Sure, you can make "don't stand in the fire" REALLY hard if the fire is big and spawns really fast, and thus beating that encounter requires more skill of some sort, but that doesn't make it particular interesting or strategic.

An FPS has a lot of different ways for a game to introduce skill tests and strategy. You don't just put a crosshair over a guy and shoot them. You move, often with a physics based movement system. You jump around. You use terrain in a variety of ways. You use strategies that take advantage of sight lines. The game may have active dodging or an Unreal style teleporter or whatever. And you can also not stand in fire and manage ammo and keep track of your position and that of the enemy.


In an MMO like WoW there just aren't many things that a player can actually do that matter, so the things you can test are relatively low. Players can move so you can make them move out of fire. They can use abilities so you can make them use the right abilities at the right time. But they don't have to really aim their abilities, so you can't test that or anything that goes along with that like leading a target and movement prediction. They can't dash or dodge or roll or do anything movement-related except for a basic run and jump, so while you can test their ability to not stand in fire you can't test much else. Positioning tends to not matter at a base gameplay level so you can't test that without shoehorning it into the raid mechanics.

You can tune numbers so that an encounter takes more skill via a smaller margin for error but that's not the same as making a game interesting. There's nothing interesting about Battletoads or those crazy Mario romhacks, even though they are hard as hell.

The number of ways a WoW encounter can test skill is low because the number of meaningful things players can do in combat is low. By the way this is the exact reason Arkham City boss fights are so terrible. Against a non-human-sized single enemy there's just not many ways you can meaningfully interact.

  • More dumb fire abilities were added in 5.0. (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=115073)  Of course, if the operative words here are simply leading and target prediction, then Iron Grenades (http://www.wowhead.com/item=4390#created-by-spell).
  • Umm, literally every class in WoW has some sort of untargeted "move faster" ability on a short cooldown now, most have had these abilities since 2004.  Two of these abilities are actually named dash and roll, dash has been in since the original game launch.
  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPJumGFCuEI - because movement isn't part of the base gameplay.

Still utterly fucking wrong, fancy that.  It's almost as if an argument built wholly on counter-factual assertions will not ever be right no matter what hangups you have about a fuckwit named Bruce who, I might add, would quote sentence fragments and omit large sections of a paragraph pursuant to the argument the person was making because he was an utter cock.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on November 30, 2012, 10:21:43 PM
(http://global3.memecdn.com/One-does-not-simply-take-an-arrow-to-the-knee_o_108897.jpg)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 30, 2012, 10:39:04 PM
Sheepherder, we just have irreconcilably different definition of what constitutes movement being an part of the "base gameplay."  The video you linked is literally a warrior doing a LoS pull.  If that is interesting/engaging to you, that pretty much explains why we will never agree on what constitutes interesting and engaging combat/movement.

Here are some examples from my point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NAmL4tjFzk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcYpuNNqL18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg_Dx8xWXis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lrSVumR7l8

TERA, which has been cited a few times as one of the better MMO attempts has a bit more than average: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEWmtcnXF_w

I mean, pick whichever one you happen to like, any of them are obviously more interesting than most MMO combat/movement.  It isn't than MMOs have 0 redeeming features, it is that at this point I've played that side of them out and I really need actual engaging session to session gameplay to keep me interested.  Planetside 2 is the only MMO in a while which has actually left me wanting to log in just for the sheer enjoyment of playing it recently.  I'd like to see some more traditional fantasy MMOs manage to draw me in the same way.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 11:15:59 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPJumGFCuEI

This is a video of AI getting stuck on a corner.

Bravo.

Every time you guys post a video of how strategically advanced WOW is you are making my argument for me. So far we have a video of bad AI pathing being abused and a video of a boss fight that is quite literally "move out of the fire." What in this video is supposed to be interesting? The guy using "leap" (AKA another "move faster" ability)? What about AI getting stuck on a corner is impressive?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 11:32:50 PM
Added in 5.0.

Wow, one ability that requires targeting, added recently! Well you totally just disproved my point, I guess aiming is super important in WoW! Let me guess, if you think hard enough you'll come up with a whole second ability as well! I guess I was wrong when I said "abilities don't require aiming", I should have said "nearly all abilities don't require aiming." Got me!

Quote
They can't dash or dodge or roll or do anything movement-related except for a basic run and jump, so while you can test their ability to not stand in fire you can't test much else.
Umm, literally every class in WoW has some sort of untargeted "move faster" ability on a short cooldown now, most have had these abilities since 2004.  Two of these abilities are actually named dash and roll, dash has been in since the original game launch.

Move faster is pretty exciting stuff!

All of these abilities, though they are called stuff like "roll" and "dash" and "sprint" etc, all seem to be functionally equivalent and just a movement speed boost. They don't allow you to actually dodge much if anything (other than pools of fire lol, it all comes back to that), and no abilities are aimed (oh sorry, one ability in the game requires targeting, my bad!) so...who cares?

You can run away from an encounter and joust in PVP. Is that it? (And jousting is stupid) Are we really going to pretend that running faster is super different from running normally? I guess you would argue that "basic run and jump" doesn't describe any game with analog speed control since you can not only run but run faster and slower as well.

Your standards are incredibly low.

A spell that increments your base movement rate is complex movement, kiting AI until it gets stuck on a corner because the pathfinding doesn't do any sort of avoidance or grouping is complex positioning and moving out of some fire is the height of strategic gameplay. What?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on November 30, 2012, 11:38:39 PM
This is a video of AI getting stuck on a corner.

Bravo.
A spell that increments your base movement rate is complex movement, kiting AI until it gets stuck on a corner because the pathfinding doesn't do any sort of avoidance or grouping is complex positioning and moving out of some fire is the height of strategic gameplay. It's like WoW and Peggle are the only two games you've ever played.

They're casters, they go around the corner, see the player, and start casting.  A stuck mob in WoW becomes unhittable, regenerates it's health, and drops aggro after a few seconds.

Bravo.

Sheepherder, we just have irreconcilably different definition of what constitutes movement being an part of the "base gameplay."  The video you linked is literally a warrior doing a LoS pull.  If that is interesting/engaging to you, that pretty much explains why we will never agree on what constitutes interesting and engaging combat/movement.

I could probably find some more exceptional examples, but he did ask for base gameplay, and that's pretty much the first example that comes to mind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on November 30, 2012, 11:45:33 PM


I could probably find some more exceptional examples, but he did ask for base gameplay, and that's pretty much the first example that comes to mind.

That's just the thing, we did want base gameplay, because that is what matters most of the time.  Finding exceptional examples isn't the point here.  The point is, the fundamentals of WoW-like combat just aren't very interesting to a lot of us anymore to the point where that combat system is enough for me to simply not care about a new MMORPG coming out if it uses it.  There are countless other games/genres which have engaging combat all the time, and although "Action oriented" is a buzz word on MMO boxes these days, exceedingly few have done much at all to break the mold.

If you like WoW combat for what it is, FINE, I'm glad you enjoy the game, but don't try to make it out to be something it's not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on November 30, 2012, 11:59:10 PM
They're casters, they go around the corner, see the player, and start casting.  A stuck mob in WoW becomes unhittable, regenerates it's health, and drops aggro after a few seconds.

And? Who cares?

Why is this supposedly interesting, novel or impressive in any way? You can exploit AI behavior and pathfinding in WoW....ok...?

I don't understand what this video is supposed to illustrate. I said movement wasn't important and you linked to a video of a guy running around a corner to abuse AI and sucky pathfinding. What am I missing?

Should I link to a video of Asheron's Call 2 where a guy gets AI stuck on walls he creates? At least there the ability to create arbitrary walls in the environment is at least somewhat interesting.

Heres a video of a FFXI BCNM fight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxE2dbQ_OPM

It requires kiting, facing the right direction, letting an enemy start to cast then running out of range/sight, etc. I guess that proves...something. It seems like you'd have to argue that in this fight movement and positioning are important and the fight is mechanically interesting. Whereas I'd argue that although it's more interesting than fighting a standard enemy it's still nothing to write home about.

It's not like I've never played any video game before and getting AI stuck on a corner or in casting animation is an impressive strategy...it takes a little more than that to excite me. And again, fights like these are not the norm. In most fights that aren't raid bosses or BCNMs or whatever you stand there, eat your sandwich and win.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 12:10:19 AM
Wow, one ability that requires targeting, added recently! Well you totally just disproved my point, I guess aiming is super important in WoW! Let me guess, if you think hard enough you'll come up with a whole second ability as well! I guess I was wrong when I said "abilities don't require aiming", I should have said "nearly all abilities don't require aiming." Got me!

Well, I assumed you had at one point in time some familiarity with the game, and so I wouldn't have to enumerate my way through a list of abilities which regularly benefit from some form of timing or aim, like the original Blizzard and it's delayed chill proc, or the original cast Shadowflame, or Cone of Cold for that matter.  You know, basic, early game "I had a level 20 rogue back in 2005 and gave up because this game was bullshit and this asshole mage kept kiting me" sorts of things.  Turns out: nope!  You have absofuckinglutely no idea what you're talking about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 12:19:47 AM
Well, I assumed you had at one point in time some familiarity with the game, and so I wouldn't have to enumerate my way through a list of abilities which regularly benefit from some form of timing or aim, like the original Blizzard and it's delayed chill proc, or the original cast Shadowflame, or Cone of Cold for that matter.  You know, basic, early game "I had a level 20 rogue and gave up because this game was bullshit" sorts of things.  Turns out: nope!  You have absofuckinglutely no idea what you're talking about.

Since when are we debating whether or not you have to time abilities in an MMO? I specifically said leading targets and movement prediction.

"Some form of timing or aim" is not what we're talking about, we're talking about actual aiming. Yes, MMOs have conal spells and spherical spells...yay. Group a bunch of enemies in front of you then use your cone effect - strategy! Try to get enemies in range before using a spherical AOE attack!

Again I think your standards are just incredibly low. Yes, Cone of Cold benefits from the player not being completely brain dead and casting it facing backwards. If you want to consider that mechanical complexity and "aiming" go ahead I guess? In a game where most enemies do very little to avoid attacks you have to correctly aim a 90 degree arc to hit them...Cone of Cold is also instant cast no? So there is no movement prediction.

I'm sorry but "not facing backwards" is not aiming to me, at least not in a way that really matters.

Show me the "aiming" in the video you linked to. If aiming is important to base combat it should appear in that video no?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 12:36:41 AM
I think we're going to just have to agree to disagree.

So far I've seen a video of a "don't stand in the fire" boss fight and a video of exploiting pathing. If you guys are happy with that in an MMO, if to you that is strategic, engaging, mechanically deep combat that's cool I guess.

I would like something more. Some people are happy with Dynasty Warriors. Some people aren't. To me aiming is not "face the right general direction", dynamic movement is not "you can also move faster", positioning is not "try to get the enemies to form a blob." I've played a lot of different kinds of game with a lot of different kinds of combat, from FPS to 3rd person action to turn-based strategy, and to me most MMO combat is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of being engaging. Combat in MMOs, especially combat against normal enemies, is usually trivial and rote from both a strategic and mechanical viewpoint.

Edit: And again, I'm not asking that WoW become a different game. I'm asking that other games make a break from WoW - which probably makes sense from a business standpoint as a well as a game design one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 12:42:59 AM
So let's talk (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=88747), very specifically (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=113724), about movement prediction (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=77769) then.  Possibly the related area denial as well.  Though I can't link some examples because they are no longer with us.

EDIT: Or not, your call.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 12:45:50 AM
So let's talk (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=88747), very specifically (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=113724), about movement prediction (http://www.wowhead.com/spell=77769) then.  Possibly the related area denial as well.  Though I can't link some examples because they are no longer with us.

EDIT: Or not, your call.

In a PVE game where enemies have no real AI is there such a thing as "movement prediction"?

In the video you linked to what exactly was the movement that required prediction? The enemies did what MMO enemies nearly always do and walked in a shortest path up to casting / melee range. The fact that you can place something on the ground that lasts for 10 seconds and activates when enemies walk though doesn't require prediction at all if enemies just move straight towards you. And the timing window is so loose that I don't see how you could screw it up.

If you fire a rocket in Quake even if you know the enemy is going to travel in a straight line you still need to time it within a window of milliseconds. Here you have a 10 second window and a large area to catch enemies moving basically deterministically. How is that not trivial?

Placing an obstacle in front of an enemy moving in a straight line is not movement prediction. Try again?

Here's a video of a game that requires much better timing and at least as much movement prediction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=437Ld_rKM2s


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 01:03:17 AM
I have yet to see a singleplayer game where the AI looks for mines before advancing on the player either.

For that matter, I had some good times with mines in UT2004.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 01:42:13 AM
I have yet to see a singleplayer game where the AI looks for mines before advancing on the player either.

For that matter, I had some good times with mines in UT2004.

Have you played a single-player game where the AI does more than make a beeline directly towards the player? Because such games do exist, believe it or not.

When the enemy moves in a predictable straight line directly towards you and you place a spell that has a long duration and area to intercept them how exactly does that require movement prediction? It's a pretty straightforward question that you apparently have no answer to despite bringing it up as a positive example.

I like how you said "let's talk, very specifically" about this, didn't actually talk about it at all other than pasting links, then when I did talk specifically about it changed the subject to Unreal Tournament. If you have something intelligent to say about movement prediction in WoW say it already. Cause it kind of looks like you don't.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 02:05:42 AM
Edit: Eh, Sheepherder gonna sheepherd.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 02:17:10 AM
I'm sort of bemused that, since we've now discovered that you do indeed have abilities that incentivize you to predict the movements of AI or players that the issue now is that the AI doesn't dodge them.  Just like when we discovered that you have what amounts to dodging abilities, but they're not creative enough, because they're all a variant on "move faster."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 02:33:43 AM
I'm sort of bemused that, since we've now discovered that you do indeed have abilities that incentive you to predict the movements of AI or players that the issue now is that the AI doesn't dodge them.  Just like when we discovered that you have what amounts to dodging abilities, but they're not creative enough, because they're all a variant on "move faster."

1. I asked you twice what actually required prediction in the use of these abilities and both times you refused to answer. So clearly the answer is "nothing."

2. "Dodging" is not the same as "not moving in a completely predictable straight path that requires zero prediction to take advantage of."

3. We didn't discover that you have what "amounts to dodging abilities", as the abilities you mentioned do not dodge, they merely increase movement speed.

I like how you lead off this discussion by implying that I was a cock for selective quoting and answering, then said you would "talk specifically" about a subject, the proceeded to not only not talk specifically about it but dodge extremely obvious and straightforward questions because you can't answer them without making yourself look foolish.

The fact that you repeatedly refuse to answer straightforward questions means you've conceded the argument. This is not 1993 on Usenet when these moronic internet debating tactics took people by surprise and worked.

I'm still waiting for you talk "very specifically" about movement prediction in WoW, because despite your vow to do that you've said nothing intelligent about it at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFG0GL8YrC8&feature=fvst

This is the first result on youtube for "let's play World of Warcraft." Wow, the combat is so intense and dynamic! (Skip to 5 minutes in) So much positioning, movement prediction, aiming, etc. Note that this is only slightly shittier than the video you linked to which was supposed to be an example of advanced tactics in WoW and consisted of AI getting stuck on a corner.

Is this video fake? It's fake right?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 03:50:11 AM
1. I asked you twice what actually required prediction in the use of these abilities and both times you refused to answer. So clearly the answer is "nothing."

Or, possibly, sticking it on the ground where you expect person/mob to be at some unspecified point in the future due to easily predictable pathfinding/player behaviour; fight scripting; or coordination with another player over how you're going to move a mob.  Obvious answer is obvious.

2. "Dodging" is not the same as "not moving in a completely predictable straight path that requires zero prediction to take advantage of."

First: grammar snake attack.  If you can't see it, look harder.

There are a select few mobs in the game that actually toss in random movements, (usually via special ability) that number appears to be increasing.  They're generally more annoying than effective, because if it isn't in melee range it's either ranged and thus usually stationary or not doing damage to you, and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  Scripting a mob to occasionally jump in a random direction just gives my warrior an extra opportunity to charge.

3. We didn't discover that you have what "amounts to dodging abilities", as the abilities you mentioned do not dodge, they merely increase movement speed.

As is double tapping a direction in Unreal Tournament.  Functionally, the difference is that you have to outrange/line of sight some attacks before it fires rather than interrupting it in flight, while others you can dodge in progress, (there's usually one of these per class) and against players you can dodge behind the player to interrupt the attack if they aren't quick to mouselook around.

Quote
I like how you lead off this discussion by implying that I was a cock for selective quoting and answering

Is your name Bruce?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on December 01, 2012, 04:47:42 AM

...what is this, I have no idea.

I wouldn't worry about it. The future for mainstream MMO's will involve trying to drag in the short attention span button mashers from the console generation. WoW is from an olden time when games could be measured and tactical, and EQ would probably blow their minds if their "bored, I sleep now" circuits didn't cut in.

Tera is basically the start of it, but I would expect that trend to continue.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 05:49:39 AM
1. I asked you twice what actually required prediction in the use of these abilities and both times you refused to answer. So clearly the answer is "nothing."
Or, possibly, sticking it on the ground where you expect person/mob to be at some unspecified point in the future due to easily predictable pathfinding/player behaviour

So movement prediction in WoW is trivial. Got it.

This was my original statement that you took issue with:

Quote
But they don't have to really aim their abilities, so you can't test that or anything that goes along with that like leading a target and movement prediction.

So your argument is that you can test movement prediction  - but the test is trivially easy to pass. Which is basically a restatement of my argument. A gameplay test that the player can't fail is not meaningful and does not add any systemic depth.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 01, 2012, 06:56:00 AM
I would be pretty happy for the time being if they implemented Vindictus combat in a real, open world MMORPG. This is pretty much what Tera is trying to do, and what some of us would like. No amount of gimmicky bomb-throwing is gonna make WoW and the auto-attack brigade into one of those games. Are the EQ/WoW-likes good games with their own kind of skill involved? Sure. Are they satisfying to those who are looking for more twitch in their MMORPGs? No, and I don't even understand why someone wants WoW to fit in that category so bad.

Please drop it. We probably all enjoyed EQ/WoW/Rift at some point. But these are not the games we are talking about now and wishing for in the future. If you don't get it, I can only think that for some weird doctrinaire or emotional reasons you are taking the limits and the obsolescence of WoW too personally.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 08:57:47 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFG0GL8YrC8&feature=fvst

This is the first result on youtube for "let's play World of Warcraft." Wow, the combat is so intense and dynamic! (Skip to 5 minutes in) So much positioning, movement prediction, aiming, etc. Note that this is only slightly shittier than the video you linked to which was supposed to be an example of advanced tactics in WoW and consisted of AI getting stuck on a corner.

Is this video fake? It's fake right?

By any chance did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 01, 2012, 09:18:18 AM
This is a ridiculous argument. You're both drawing down the IQ of the board with this nonsense.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on December 01, 2012, 09:48:19 AM

...what is this, I have no idea.

I wouldn't worry about it. The future for mainstream MMO's will involve trying to drag in the short attention span button mashers from the console generation. WoW is from an olden time when games could be measured and tactical, and EQ would probably blow their minds if their "bored, I sleep now" circuits didn't cut in.


It has nothing to do with measured and tactical.   I played World War 2 Online for a long time.  It was measured, tactical, slow as hell, and absolutely intense and engaging.  Hell, I raided in WoW for years in a fairly high end guild (at least within the context of the server I played on, we weren't contending for world firsts or anything, but we were contending for server firsts).  The combat was NEVER measured and tactical.   It was often coordinated, but it wasn't as if we needed brilliant strategists to make important on the fly tactical decisions 95% of the time.  Everyone had a pre-set job, and you had to execute it.  Perhaps newer boss fights are more dynamic (Cataclysm raiding and onward, I have no experience), but it isn't like WoW raiding is somehow a shining light of strategic and tactical combat and people like me are arguing that we just wish we could hit buttons more often.  I mean come on.

And even when they manage to put together interesting fights, of which there were many actually, it was a result of them designing particular fights to be interesting, not interesting combat which simply arose from great fundamental combat mechanics.  That video Margalis linked of a low level rogue Let's Play is the fundamental combat of WoW and WoW-alikes in my opinion - particularly for someone who plays the game solo most of the time.   THAT is the experience that needs to change to get MMORPGs to interest me again.  Raids/Group scripted fights can and always will have the potential to be interesting depending on their specific mechanics, but that isn't evidence that the fundamentals are good.

I'm not saying current MMO combat needs to be obliterated and that no future MMOs should have it.  It does have an audience.  But for ME to care about this genre again, it will need to produce a more interesting set of combat mechanics that have me engaged. 



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 01, 2012, 11:24:33 AM
This is a ridiculous argument. You're both drawing down the IQ of the board with this nonsense.

It is, that was going to be my last comment on the topic.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 01, 2012, 11:28:51 PM
It is, that was going to be my last comment on the topic.

Edit: Stop posting then. Bye.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Triforcer on December 02, 2012, 10:27:39 AM
Saying that MMO combat "must" evolve into twitchy real-time target-leading combat is like saying chess "must" evolve into Hungry Hungry Hippos. I really hope both have a place in the future- there will always be a cohort that simply isn't good at twitch (or semi-twitch) combat. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 02, 2012, 06:29:38 PM
It has to evolve though. That much is certain. People having tried to piggyback off the current iteration of WoW and failed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 02, 2012, 06:36:14 PM
It has to evolve though. That much is certain. People having tried to piggyback off the current iteration of WoW and failed.

I keep coming back to EQ2, CoX, GW as the sort of approach devs should be taking. Not necessarily for the specific mechanics, but for the fact they actually tried to move shit forward.

They have to see prior MMOGs as a platform to build on, not as the definition of the limits of player expectation.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 03, 2012, 09:29:18 AM
It doesn't have to evolve into a twitchier game set, but I would like it to.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 03, 2012, 10:51:21 PM
It has to evolve though. That much is certain. People having tried to piggyback off the current iteration of WoW and failed.

This. The world only needs one WoW. Or maybe an eventual sequel/refresh from Blizzard. Every WoW clone has underperformed.

MMOs are largely about fostering a large community where community size itself becomes a strength of the game. The market can't support 10 games that are all basically the same. One will get the players and snowball, the rest will wither and die.

The fact that a Star Wars WoW-clone still cratered should be the final nail in the coffin to the "let's clone WoW!" thinking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on December 04, 2012, 12:50:32 AM
Goddamn, I love the ferocity of WoW bashing and defense.

(http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/smiles/orson_welles_clap.gif)

Well done, chaps. Keep it up. The future of MMO is bright indeed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 04, 2012, 01:27:01 AM
One thing people tend to overlook about wow subs is that the vast majority of them are in Asia.

SWTOR and others get seen as a failure at a million western subs but had unrealistic expectations to start with when wow only built 2 million western subs over years.

Asia seems like a marketing afterthought in most games, yet that is where the subs are.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: apocrypha on December 04, 2012, 02:49:21 AM
One thing people tend to overlook about wow subs is that the vast majority of them are in Asia.

SWTOR and others get seen as a failure at a million western subs but had unrealistic expectations to start with when wow only built 2 million western subs over years.

Asia seems like a marketing afterthought in most games, yet that is where the subs are.

More like 5+ million WoW subs in the west, not 2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 04, 2012, 10:07:25 AM
I think it peaked at 6.5m, but I can't be assed to look for a source.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 05, 2012, 06:21:54 AM
Ok, I have something (I think) new for you all. It's called Forge (http://store.steampowered.com/app/223390/), it's a little indie product that just got greenlit on Steam after failing to make their Kickstarter goal. It's a PvP arena-only game, pretty much a MMORPG without the world and without PvE, with a combat system that is definitely hotbar-based but absolutely focused on action, positioning and reflexes (active block, jumping on walls, aiming, no auto attack). Granted, since it's PvP only we don't know how dumb or exciting could it be in a PvE context, but since it draws so much from the usual MMORPG combat formula while enhancing it with more action, I think it shows a bit better the direction MMO combat might easily evolve into at this point.

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YgmayUxbH0U), and here's the website (http://www.playforgewar.com/).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on December 05, 2012, 06:34:24 AM
Hmm, I remember Forge, it was started by some WOW arena gladiators / enthusiasts iirc.

I wonder what they can provide that (f'rex) Bloodline Champions doesn't, though...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 05, 2012, 07:09:06 AM
My memory could be bad here, but isn't Bloodline Champions point-and-click? If the answer is yes that makes all the difference in the world, since we are talking about viable forms of combat for future MMORPGs, not just arena pvp games, and I showed Forge just because the combat is clearly inspired by the WoW-formula but with twitch added. Bloodline Champions is inspired by Warcraft/MOBAs.

(EDIT: If anything, Forge is the new attempt at what that other game tried to do a few years ago but failed horribly. Can't remember the name, help me here. Low budget, arena pvp only. Risk? Rift? Rage? Rank? Dammit, I'm getting worse...)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on December 05, 2012, 07:13:28 AM
, but since it draws so much from the usual MMORPG combat formula while enhancing it with more action,

No it doesn't.   It's a fantasy shooter. They even call it that themselves.

Quote
Forge is a class based multiplayer shooter set...

It looks like the game KallDrexx worked on whose name escapes me.  That game *was* fun but was in no way your traditional MMO combat formula.  These games are taking GW and adding shooter elements to them, which is a different approach.  There's also no character development.

You basically just said Hexxen was a precursor to EQ because both have spells!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on December 05, 2012, 07:29:23 AM
, but since it draws so much from the usual MMORPG combat formula while enhancing it with more action,

No it doesn't.   It's a fantasy shooter. They even call it that themselves.

Quote
Forge is a class based multiplayer shooter set...

It looks like the game KallDrexx worked on whose name escapes me.  That game *was* fun but was in no way your traditional MMO combat formula.  These games are taking GW and adding shooter elements to them, which is a different approach.  There's also no character development.

You basically just said Hexxen was a precursor to EQ because both have spells!
Fury, IIRC. And yes, both games seem heavy into the arena-based e-sport thing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 05, 2012, 07:34:09 AM
, but since it draws so much from the usual MMORPG combat formula while enhancing it with more action,

No it doesn't.   It's a fantasy shooter. They even call it that themselves.

Quote
Forge is a class based multiplayer shooter set...

It looks like the game KallDrexx worked on whose name escapes me.  That game *was* fun but was in no way your traditional MMO combat formula.  These games are taking GW and adding shooter elements to them, which is a different approach.  There's also no character development.

You basically just said Hexxen was a precursor to EQ because both have spells!

I play Forge. I know what I am talking about. Labels and press names don't mean anything. Especially in a time where everyone is trying to cater to the biggest audience possible. This game is trying to appeal to those pvp-oriented MMORPG players who could use a less miserable combat. I am not surprised, as Zetor says, that this game is being made by some ex-WoW player.

The combat is, to put it simple, WoW (or any other hotbar/cooldown based MMORPG) with lots more twitch. Or simply a faster Tera, which is by no means a shooter and just an evolution of the hotbar formula as everyone kind of agreed on in the last ten pages or so. Hell, even your main spammable free attack here has a hotbar icon and 1 second Global Cooldown. Shooter much?

Thanks for trying, Merusk.


Fake Edit: Fury! Thanks, Zetor.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: KallDrexx on December 05, 2012, 08:06:01 AM
I still think that a game like Fury and this does actually have a chance at success, but it requires a *lot* design that has to be extremely well thought out.  That involves not punching newbies in the dick so they actually can understand what's going on in a way that and also providing some form of attachment for players to make them actually want to log in and play.  It also has to make it so a bad game or idiots on your team doesn't make it an extremely boring experience.

Haven't played forge yet (although I think I signed up for a key a long time ago) but judging from the video, while the video is flashy and all I really think it violates my first point (and this was one huge issue I kept bringing up at fury design meetings).  If the game is too fast paced it's too hard to figure out why the hell you just died or what you could have done in that situation better.  The fact that it brags that it's "the fastest combat out there" makes me apprehensive of it being newbie friendly.

Of course, the problem with slower paced games is you get into instances like GW1 guild vs guild where you have 30 minute matches of attrition.

Fast paced works well with FPS because it's pretty simple, if you died it's because you were somewhere you shouldn't have and got shot.  That's not a game with a hotbar ability based game.  Getting a game like this t owork well in the long run is harder than most realize.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on December 05, 2012, 08:46:10 AM


Limiting abilities is the first step.  It makes the game much simpler to balance because you don't have untested combos that internal conversations handwave as "that'll never work" and a few hundred thousand players punching keys proves them wrong in a day.

It also has the advantage of being easier to learn since you don't have to memorize (or develop) a counter for X classes * y abilities.

They appear to have done that where Fury failed.  I'm with you on the pace, though.  Feedback is important if you're going to make it so damn quick.  TF2 does this with replays of your deaths, a game like this needs that with what abilities were hitting you flashing in your face if they're relying on HPs instead of FPS hitzones.
 
And that's where the breakdown is for me.  The method of the kill determination.  Even FPS have hotbars in the way you guys keep hammering on it as "psuh butan do damege1".   If you're wearing-down a HP bar instead of "boom headshot" then yeah, it's more MMO-like combat.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on December 05, 2012, 09:06:11 AM
I like to twitch, and limited abilities, but I also prefer something slower paced as well.  I hate having to measure success by my APM.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 05, 2012, 09:41:34 AM
Forge at the moment is definitely "too fast" and with not enough feedback on incoming damage. At least, in an fps way, it shows you the direction damage is coming from, but it's definitely not enough.

Then again, I'd like to see this in a PvE situatiion, although mobs' behaviour plays a big part in the amount of twitch you are gonna get out of any given combat system. The two things have to evolve together, or it keeps being pointless outside of PvP.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: El Gallo on December 05, 2012, 09:48:30 PM
The fact that a Star Wars WoW-clone still cratered should be the final nail in the coffin to the "let's clone WoW!" thinking.

SWTOR was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much worse than WoW in almost every respect that I have trouble accepting that conclusion.  If that game had even been in the same universe as WoW in most respects, the addition of companions and increased focus on story would have been a nice iteration of WoW.

It's entirely possible that nobody except Blizzard has the money/talent to do pull it off, but I don't think the market is unwilling to buy it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 05, 2012, 10:14:17 PM
SWTOR was the nail in the coffin after 8 years of let's-clone-WoW thinking, not the first nor only example. As was said earlier, the world only needs one WoW. Like the world only needs one Facebook or one Twitter, until something new comes along because the kids think those three things are only for "adults" (like Starbucks, or iPhones).

And just like all five of those examples, every competitor since 2005 has looked at WoW, identified the one or two things they think they can do better, and pinned the entire hope of their game on outdoing those two things, or at least carving a significant chunk of players away. But they all, to a game, did not hit huge numbers because Blizzard had a holistic set of advantages nobody else could match.

But that was recent Blizzard, not current Blizzard (and not even all the same Blizzard :wink:). WoW is only going to continue to decline, who the heck knows if Titan will ever ship, and even if it does, given how D3 and SC2 went, will Titan truly be something brand new, or just an up'res'd WoW (don't care what they're saying, just care what they'll do).

If MMOs are going to still be The Thing To Do(tm), then I say it's anyone's game right now.

The future for mainstream MMO's will involve trying to drag in the short attention span button mashers from the console generation.

If there's a future for "mainstream" MMOs, my guess is it'll evolve off of social networking games. Many are getting there already, just not in the way we're used to doing things in MMOs competitively or cooperatively. There's tens of millions of new gamers these days who don't call themselves gamers but who'll put in as much time and money on Farmville 2 or Cityville 2 as we would on GW2.

At the same time, consoles are having issues. Packaged media is declining and digital is not offsetting it revenue-wise. We'll be seeing steadily leaner games coming that try to appeal to a wider audience than us, who continue to age and bring the "average age of a gamer" with us. That's not sustainable and the industry knows it. Today's kids and "no I'm not a gamer"s are ditching consoles and PCs for tablets and smartphones. They'll play the big annualized titles, maybe.

GW2 is a good example of a current MMO for the short attention span theater crowd. Very mashy :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 06, 2012, 01:51:31 PM
I think a much fairer comparison is Rift, which as far as i know is doing "decent".  Swtor was a single player game hammered into an MMO mold, people finished the game and quit playing like they do with any other game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 06, 2012, 06:29:54 PM
Swtor's single player thing doesn't really apply the way it used too.

The main questing 1-50 line is better production values for the same process in wow, then an archetypal group raiding game starts. You can't solo much past 50.

And the dungeon finder & pvp systems means you can group 1-50 if you want.


The mechanics have always been built for multiplayer. Player abilities suffer from the same over simple player design that we talked about earlier and which you'd never get away with in a single player game.

On the plus side this is the only MMOG I've played where sheer production values can keep me interested for a stretch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: El Gallo on December 06, 2012, 10:23:12 PM
Edit: derail deleted


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 07, 2012, 07:01:49 AM
Edit: derail deleted

It's been 8 pages since anyone made a post about ESO. That ship has sailed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 07, 2012, 07:28:35 AM
It would be great if we had anything new to talk about around Elder Scrolls Online. Sadly, even the fluff slowed down again. Which is not an open invitation to Blackwulf to come back and artificially create some out of nothing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 07, 2012, 02:54:20 PM
Swtor's single player thing doesn't really apply the way it used too.

The main questing 1-50 line is better production values for the same process in wow, then an archetypal group raiding game starts. You can't solo much past 50.

And the dungeon finder & pvp systems means you can group 1-50 if you want.


The mechanics have always been built for multiplayer. Player abilities suffer from the same over simple player design that we talked about earlier and which you'd never get away with in a single player game.

On the plus side this is the only MMOG I've played where sheer production values can keep me interested for a stretch.

My point was that Rift is the most faithful WoW clone without any obvious crippling issues like SWTORs ending story and it is doing good. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 07, 2012, 04:10:53 PM
I'm not sure we have ever been given enough information about Rift to draw any conclusions about how well it is doing. They had early server merges just like everyone else, they just somehow managed to fool you people by saying they were 'creating trial servers' out of the retired ones.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on December 07, 2012, 04:37:47 PM
My point was that Rift is the most faithful WoW clone without any obvious crippling issues like SWTORs ending story and it is doing good.  

I'm not sure I'd say it is doing "good". They are down to 8 NA servers from the 30+ they started with. Rift is, as far as we can tell, financially successful but you have to keep in mind that it had much lower expectations and requirements to be financially successful compared to other MMOs. It cost an estimated 50 million to make compared to the 200+ of SWTORs (iirc both numbers...), and it is competently built so it seems they've had an easier time adding new content to the game compared to their competition.

It's not a positive indication of the health of the genre, it's an indication that Trion had a good business plan and a smooth development process. The genre is still declining.

Rift has recently announced that the game will be going F2P in Korea and they added a working in-game store to the NA/EU version of the game a few patches back. You can draw your own conclusions about how healthy it actually is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on December 07, 2012, 08:50:51 PM
Have Trion had mass lay-offs?  If no, they're in a much better spot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on December 07, 2012, 09:14:09 PM
The reason that so many of the let's-clone-WoW titles have failed is that they have cloned that game badly. And that even in areas where they made an improvement, it was typically more incremental than incredible.

Trion is, afaik, doing very well for itself. Rift apparently stuck to its budget of US$50m in development and apparently made back US$100m in 10 months post-launch (http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/01/19/rift-revenues-reached-100-million-in-2011-trion-secures-new-fu/). They've got other projects in the works, so they aren't going to be completely dependent on one source of revenue. (Is Defiance the way to go? I don't think so, but if Hartsman is involved, anything is possible.)

But I agree that the MMO genre is declining. For a lot of investors, MMOs are WoW, and if in 8 years no-one has come close to matching them, then money should be spent elsewhere. Which is why MOBAs are seeing much more love.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on December 07, 2012, 09:58:47 PM
We honestly have no idea how well Rift is doing, other than the fact the game hasn't shut down and the company is still in business.

They are privately owned, post no financials, and don't give information on sub numbers. Any attempt to make a judgement on the success of the game is pretty pointless in my mind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 08, 2012, 04:17:23 AM
I strongly suspect they went through the same cycle as everyone else. Over a million boxes bought settling down to a few hundred thousand subs.

Only Rift had more sensible expectations than most.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 08, 2012, 06:14:11 AM
And it's just plain and simply, in its genre, one of the two best games around. Too bad that isn't really rewarded.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rattran on December 08, 2012, 10:58:18 AM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pennilenko on December 08, 2012, 11:20:10 AM
I'm not betting on this game being good. I think it has a large chance of sucking. I feel bad for some friends that still play wow, they really don't like wow anymore but are intimidated by other choices in the market. They think this will be the next big thing and are planning a mass exodus if/when it ever releases.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Selby on December 08, 2012, 12:17:20 PM
We honestly have no idea how well Rift is doing, other than the fact the game hasn't shut down and the company is still in business.
My neighbor works for them.  He's been working for them since just after they started.  While he doesn't give any juicy details, the fact that he's still gainfully employed and excited about what he's working on for the next expansion says to me that they as a company are doing fine, even in 2nd place.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on December 08, 2012, 01:14:01 PM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.

I'm sorry but that's pure bs.  Beating WoW was never their goal, they are a profitable game that has more than made up for its cost already, that's a winner.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on December 08, 2012, 02:09:43 PM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.

I'm sorry but that's pure bs.  Beating WoW was never their goal, they are a profitable game that has more than made up for its cost already, that's a winner.

I believe he meant in terms of conversation and MMO punditry.  If you're not #1 or breathing down their neck, making them sweat, you're not worth discussing.

I still hold the idea that people are intimidated by unique settings. EQ had generic elves and dwarves, WoW had the same.  If we get another generic elf and dwarf fantasy game that takes off, instead of unique environment, I think we'll see what a major portion of the problem is.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 08, 2012, 07:12:48 PM
Any idea how Anet is doing? They seem to be doing ok, and I guess we won't know until Q4 financials are posted. But I feel like GW2 doesn't get credit for a number of things because it's assumed to not be doing all that well yet.

Trion was smart but yea, we just don't know. Not that it matters if we know anyway I guess.

As to mouthbreathers who pitch business plans on like-WoW-but, they get what they deserve. A large amount of shipped games are not greenlit that way, though the most vocal/high profile ones generally are. It feels to me more like a perception skew than a real one.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 09, 2012, 03:19:14 AM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.

I've never understood this shit.

It seems to be unique to MMOs. Because nobody argues that all single player games except shitty console fps are failures. Or that any film that attracts fewer people than titanic is something to be ashamed of. Or that only the most profitable company on the NYSE should stay in business.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 09, 2012, 07:39:50 AM
It seems to me that Rift is relatively successful. There's no shame in being number 2, especially when the number 1 game is an objectively terrible baby game.  :awesome_for_real:

I consider SWTOR a failure because EA said they would feel happy about the investment if it came out to a million subs a year for 10 years and obviously it's not anywhere close to that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on December 09, 2012, 08:01:05 AM
Second best is still first loser. Which is a shame, but seems to be the way it works in MMOs.

I've never understood this shit.

It seems to be unique to MMOs. Because nobody argues that all single player games except shitty console fps are failures. Or that any film that attracts fewer people than titanic is something to be ashamed of. Or that only the most profitable company on the NYSE should stay in business.

It's pretty much true of all social systems. You want to be on the system that all your friends are involved with and talking about. You want to be on the biggest one that has the money to do lots of exciting things and where there's a positive buzz.

See Facebook vs Google+ for an example.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 09, 2012, 09:08:38 AM
So why do you post on f13?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on December 09, 2012, 09:56:58 AM

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Pennilenko on December 09, 2012, 09:58:30 AM

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?


Hipster Neckbeards?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rasix on December 09, 2012, 10:57:50 AM

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?


Hipster Neckbeards?

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/82533/kanyelaugh.gif)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on December 09, 2012, 06:01:23 PM
It's pretty much true of all social systems. You want to be on the system that all your friends are involved with and talking about. You want to be on the biggest one that has the money to do lots of exciting things and where there's a positive buzz.

See Facebook vs Google+ for an example.

To me it's really just about being on the biggest one that appeals to you the most. Facebook vs Google + is a good example of convergence. But LinkedIn is a good indicator that there's more to social sharing than just Facebook. Just like the Galaxy S3 is showing the world that it's not just iPhone or crap.

Games always have top-X lists. But every genre also has multiple favorites. Rift will never be WoW, but neither are Trion's operating costs the same. CCP, Turbine and SOE are also doing fine. Same can be said on social networking games or smartphone apps.

Are business leaders pitching a new MMO because of Rift? Depends. Do they have experience in the genre? If so, Rift is likely mentioned. If not, then it's all based on "if we can just get 10% of WoW's audience - something - moneyhats", to their eventual disillusionment.

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?
A cross section of veterans who have a lot of history watching industries evolve and converge together.

I don't think we necessarily represent shit of course. We're not a market anyone should target because aside from being relatively few, we can't even agree on what's "best"  :grin:

But I'd rather have a diverse set of veterans with wildly different opinions they'll go all deep on expounding than the one dimensional barking on Twitter, the insular closed communities on Facebook, the temporary official game forums, and the ad support cesspool genre/ratings aggregation sites.

In short, I respect the opinions of people I've known here, in prior places, and a few others, way more than the luminary du jour they throw out on whatever ratings rag or site is popular at the moment.

Not that I tend to agree with everyone of course  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2012, 01:45:12 AM

What are f13 posters a representative sample of?


Certainly not the biggest social network, which is what I think Eldaec was getting at.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on December 10, 2012, 02:02:07 AM
But that was recent Blizzard, not current Blizzard (and not even all the same Blizzard :wink:). WoW is only going to continue to decline, who the heck knows if Titan will ever ship, and even if it does, given how D3 and SC2 went, will Titan truly be something brand new, or just an up'res'd WoW (don't care what they're saying, just care what they'll do).

WoW's decline isn't inevitable.  Blizzard is just working really hard at it, and has been since Cataclysm launched.

Daily quests as a form of progression always were a stupid idea, and now they're a huge chunk of the endgame.  A lot of classes have some rather questionable design decisions centered around random procs.  Fel Sacrifice is back.  Crowd control versus DoTs and AoEs was going to get fixed back in 3.0, and then it didn't, and still hasn't.  Elemental shamans got a really nifty glyph for Lightning Bolt that allowed it to be cast while moving and I imagine was meant to be a trial balloon, it appears to be gone now, what remains are mostly crippled variants of the same.  Stags all the way down made it into a live build. (http://youtu.be/H-hNYKyF8FA)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 10, 2012, 01:40:15 PM
It's pretty much true of all social systems. You want to be on the system that all your friends are involved with and talking about. You want to be on the biggest one that has the money to do lots of exciting things and where there's a positive buzz.

See Facebook vs Google+ for an example.

Does this even make sense at all? I want to be on the social network that has money to do exciting things? What exciting things has any social networking site done?

Facebook is a way to maintain superficial contact with a large net of people, so yes, you want to be on the Facebook equivalent that is the most popular. Google+ is just a bad Facebook and the one new interesting feature (circles) is fundamentally broken in design.

There is nothing to Facebook but the people on it. In a video game there is the actual game. While it's fun to play the game that your friends are playing it's also fun to play the better game, and the tastes of you and your friends may be different from that of the public at large.

The world only needs one WoW, sure, just like it really only needs one COD. But there's still room for a Tera or Halo. Just not for a space WoW with laser swords.



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 10, 2012, 01:45:25 PM
That said, I know countless people who play WoW just because of the people on it, and that have explicitly said multiple times that they felt "alone" in all the other games they tried, regardless of how good they were. And not just because their circle of friends didn't care, but because it felt like SOCIETY didn't care!

I think we all agree that this is ridiculous, and still not one bit less true and widespread I'm afraid.

A lot has to do with pop culture and the need for some to be somewhat part of it, on top of it, as opposed to behind it in a niche no one else cares about but you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 10, 2012, 01:58:27 PM

I think we all agree that this is ridiculous, and still not one bit less true and widespread I'm afraid.


Yeah, I mean goodness, why would anyone want to participate in the same shared experience that everyone else they know is.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on December 10, 2012, 02:35:53 PM
You chose to ignore the "And not just because their circle of friends didn't care, but because it felt like SOCIETY didn't care!" part when you wrote that comment, or you simply feel the same way?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 11, 2012, 03:17:58 AM
Populations on servers would imply there is at least as much room for space wow with laser swords as there is for tera. I don't especially like that this is true, but it is.

EA threw x hundred million away developing a game that should have cost tens (voice is expensive, but not that expensive), and the f2p transition was as poorly handled as anything since the nge. But the game remains viable no matter how derivative the mechanics are.

And it is the first MMOG I can think of that genuinely leverages the IP, rather than just paying lip service. So notable for that.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Kageru on December 11, 2012, 05:41:33 PM
It's pretty much true of all social systems. You want to be on the system that all your friends are involved with and talking about. You want to be on the biggest one that has the money to do lots of exciting things and where there's a positive buzz.

See Facebook vs Google+ for an example.

Does this even make sense at all? I want to be on the social network that has money to do exciting things? What exciting things has any social networking site done?

WoW has a much larger budget to play with than Rift or GW2.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on December 11, 2012, 06:05:45 PM
Quote
WoW has a much larger budget to play with than Rift or GW2.

But it does nothing exciting with that money.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on December 11, 2012, 06:31:01 PM
You chose to ignore the "And not just because their circle of friends didn't care, but because it felt like SOCIETY didn't care!" part when you wrote that comment, or you simply feel the same way?

If they mean by the "SOCIETY didn't care!" thing that all the zones are empty and they find it hard to find groups, then I do feel the same way. And in any case, there's something to be said for shared experiences.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rokal on December 11, 2012, 07:23:26 PM
Have Trion had mass lay-offs?  If no, they're in a much better spot.

Guess you spoke too soon.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/11/trion-worlds-goes-through-workforce-reduction/


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on December 11, 2012, 08:01:00 PM
Well, shit. Merry Christmas, ex-Trion employees :(


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on December 11, 2012, 08:34:47 PM
Any idea how Anet is doing? They seem to be doing ok, and I guess we won't know until Q4 financials are posted. But I feel like GW2 doesn't get credit for a number of things because it's assumed to not be doing all that well yet.

GW2 did get voted as best game of 2012 by TIME magazine.
But FWIW, it's a great PVE game for first timers, but the shine wore off past 2nd month once you got a level 80.
Here's hoping they can pull off something nice for Xmas after the Lost Shore nonsensical event.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on December 12, 2012, 12:17:31 AM
Have Trion had mass lay-offs?  If no, they're in a much better spot.

Guess you spoke too soon.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/12/11/trion-worlds-goes-through-workforce-reduction/

Gama Sutra says (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/183304/Rift_MMO_hit_hard_by_layoffs_at_Trion.php#.UMgehKzhdks) it was about 40 people which may be up to a third of RIFT's development team.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on December 12, 2012, 01:20:50 PM
Ugh.  Damn.  Sorry Trion guys.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on December 18, 2012, 08:53:02 AM
A little more info and a short monster vid:

http://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en/news/post/2012/12/17/creating-eso-the-dreugh


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: eldaec on December 18, 2012, 11:32:29 AM
Fucking people posting about ESO in an ESO thread.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 22, 2013, 09:13:48 AM
Beta signup (http://signup.elderscrollsonline.com/)

They also mention a new trailer, but I cant find it yet.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on January 22, 2013, 09:47:46 AM
It's on Massively.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/01/22/elder-scrolls-online-beta-signups-now-live-six-minute-cinematic/

Oh, and according to their sign-up process, my chances of gettin' into closed beta are "Excellent".

I can barely contain my excitement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Numtini on January 22, 2013, 10:20:37 AM
The entire excellent thing is silly. Who wouldn't keep punching buttons until they got it to excellent.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 22, 2013, 10:31:09 AM
What's the point of asking you to type in up to 7 or so games you've tested before?  What's the point of asking which MMOs you've played before?

I bet there is a secret combination.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 22, 2013, 10:34:02 AM
Less CG, more in game. Please.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: tmp on January 22, 2013, 10:36:04 AM
I bet there is a secret combination.
The secret combination is "More than two titles played? Guaranteed to be at the jaded asshole stage, dump them like a hot potato".


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on January 22, 2013, 11:16:20 AM
We putting F13 down as a guild?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 22, 2013, 11:22:02 AM
We putting F13 down as a guild?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 22, 2013, 01:10:31 PM
 :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on January 22, 2013, 01:15:52 PM
It's on Massively.

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/01/22/elder-scrolls-online-beta-signups-now-live-six-minute-cinematic/

Oh, and according to their sign-up process, my chances of gettin' into closed beta are "Excellent".


Mine too. See you in game!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 22, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Jut noticed this game existed and that we had a 30 page mmo circle jerk bout it. Honestly why didn't we just take the SWTOR thread and switch the name?

Does it bother anyone else that they changes the elder scroll elves to be prettier?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 22, 2013, 01:49:26 PM
we had a 30 page mmo circle jerk bout it.

You are mistaken. 25 of those pages have been spent making fun of the mole.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 22, 2013, 01:53:44 PM
I liked the trailer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lucas on January 22, 2013, 03:53:54 PM
Beta FAQ:

http://help.elderscrollsonline.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/679

Looks like they're aiming for weekend/short events (with maybe a smaller fraction that will be granted continuous access).

Also, after reading this interview with Creative Director Paul Sage...

http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/821/feature/7061/Elder-Scrolls-Online-Paul-Sage-Talks-Beta-Crafting-and-Progression.html

...It looks like the first (small) batch of invites (which will include yours truly and Palmer_eldritch) will go out sooner that expected:
Quote
Paul ended by saying that the small group beta will begin very soon, and you'll likely hear about it from proud forum posts of "I'm in the TESO beta, and that's all I can say because of the NDA."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on January 22, 2013, 05:53:47 PM
Don't forget to sob quietly so we can't hear you.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on January 22, 2013, 06:46:22 PM
we had a 30 page mmo circle jerk bout it.

You are mistaken. 25 of those pages have been spent making fun of the mole.

So cute...

On another note:  The trailer is pretty sweet, but it IS just CGI.  Anyone with money can hire a good CGI studio.  I hope we get some more gameplay info/footage soon.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on January 23, 2013, 04:42:50 AM
Less CG, more in game. Please.

But .. ingame would give you an idea about what the game was actually like??


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 23, 2013, 09:05:49 AM
Everything about this game seems completely 'meh' 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 23, 2013, 10:17:36 AM
No Argonians, Khajit, or Orcs.  It was pretty, but just another trailer with humans and elves.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 23, 2013, 10:33:10 AM
SWTOR CGI trailers were pretty badass too...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 23, 2013, 10:50:30 AM
Can't we just enjoy and appreciate a good CGI trailer for what it is?  Hell I know I enjoyed the SWTOR trailers more than the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 23, 2013, 12:48:33 PM
Not without Argonians. :-P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: JWIV on January 23, 2013, 01:09:54 PM
Not without Argonians. :-P

 :Love_Letters:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 23, 2013, 02:05:45 PM
Can't we just enjoy and appreciate a good CGI trailer for what it is?  Hell I know I enjoyed the SWTOR trailers more than the game.

The cg itself was nicely done but again, meh.  It wasn't gameplay, it didn't feature anything but pretty people doing pretty things and was a complete non-story.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on January 23, 2013, 02:11:08 PM
Having never played an Elder Scrolls anything, that trailer was a snoozer that had entirely too much grey layered on top of grey.


What was supposed to be happening there?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 23, 2013, 02:25:04 PM
Wulfgar and Drizzt were going on a dungeon romp through undead werewolves, while high above Entari assaulted a keep held by elves.  As Entari and the head Elf-Witch performed a staredown, Wulfgar climbed out of the sewers and turned it into a three-way.  Fade to black.  Bow-chikka-bow-wow.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on January 23, 2013, 02:25:14 PM
Having never played an Elder Scrolls anything, that trailer was a snoozer that had entirely too much grey layered on top of grey.


What was supposed to be happening there?
It's just a shout-out to Morrowind's brown on brown motif.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 23, 2013, 02:27:23 PM
Also three-faction pvp.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 23, 2013, 02:50:55 PM
Can't we just enjoy and appreciate a good CGI trailer for what it is?  Hell I know I enjoyed the SWTOR trailers more than the game.

No. They exist only to cloud the issues and fog the mind.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on January 23, 2013, 02:58:20 PM
I saw that there was something new about the game and hurried on over to f13 to see what Blackwulf had to say on the subject


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on January 23, 2013, 03:26:19 PM
Can't we just enjoy and appreciate a good CGI trailer for what it is?  Hell I know I enjoyed the SWTOR trailers more than the game.

No. They exist only to cloud the issues and fog the mind.

i love lamp


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on January 23, 2013, 03:31:58 PM
It was good as fantasy fighting porn but had almost nothing to do with the elder scrolls.  The one thing it tried to allude to, the three factions, didn't even work very well.  I had to rewatch it to figure out the last 'hero' type guy isn't another elf.

So the defenders were empirical but they aren't actually part of any of the factions?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on January 23, 2013, 03:54:07 PM
Yeah the Empire is the non-player universal badguy group apparently. Which makes me :heartbreak:, I almost always play an Imperial in these games.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on January 23, 2013, 06:25:05 PM
No Argonians, Khajit, or Orcs.  It was pretty, but just another trailer with humans and elves.

At least there was a dwarf!

also I think there is an argonian at the very beginning after the nordwarf kicks down the wall, but he subsequently transforms into a dark elf so


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on January 23, 2013, 06:43:21 PM
After doing a cursory overview of the game's established lore making a three-way faction thing happen, I have come to the conclusion that the Ebonheart Pact represents two things

- The point at which you realize lore has gone beyond simply being massaged to fit a gameplay premise
- The "And that left us with three remaining races so they are an alliance now" alliance


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on January 23, 2013, 07:16:06 PM
Factions make no sense.  They just sort of sprinkled the 'evil' races around, each faction is absurd.

And where was there a dwarf?  If there are any dwarves they would be in an expansion and be the end raid tier.  There was a norn.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on January 23, 2013, 08:07:51 PM
After doing a cursory overview of the game's established lore making a three-way faction thing happen, I have come to the conclusion that the Ebonheart Pact represents two things

- The point at which you realize lore has gone beyond simply being massaged to fit a gameplay premise
- The "And that left us with three remaining races so they are an alliance now" alliance

But everyone knows that three factions make everything perfect, which is why DAOC has been the most popular MMO ever since launch.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: rk47 on January 23, 2013, 09:21:43 PM
So that's why Warhammer failed!  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 24, 2013, 02:55:44 AM
This might as well be "Generic fantasy MOO: the elder scrolls-ish"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on January 24, 2013, 04:22:17 AM
With furries (maybe)!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on January 24, 2013, 10:00:06 AM
It reminds me a lot of the WAR trailer now that I think about it.  That was a good trailer.  Shame about the game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on January 25, 2013, 08:37:05 AM
Found this interesting tidbit in a recent Matt Firor interview.( http://www.3news.co.nz/Elder-Scrolls-Online-interview---Matt-Firor/tabid/418/articleID/284162/Default.aspx) Not sure these numbers have been stated so plainly before:

Quote
The 'Introduction to Elder Scrolls Online' video
(embedded above) has a massive PvP siege battle which
looks like hundreds or even thousands of soldiers facing
off against each other. Is a battle of this magnitude actually
possible in the game, made up of human players?

Every one of the figures in that video was a human player. We
got all of our devs into the game for a PvP test, and then
captured that sequence with them. It was all in-game.
Cyrodiil (the PvP map) is open-world and supports up to
2000 players in it at the same time. ESO’s client is designed
 to be able to handle (on the recommended spec) 200 players
on screen at the same time. That particular scene had about
115 players on each side.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 25, 2013, 08:46:35 AM
I wonder if it will run like Relic Raids did in DAOC. I remember slideshowing my way through a few of those on follow with some bard.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on January 25, 2013, 09:15:18 AM
I wonder if it will run like Relic Raids did in DAOC. I remember slideshowing my way through a few of those on follow with some bard.

Haha, yeah, those were good times.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Samprimary on January 26, 2013, 04:01:17 AM
Quote
And where was there a dwarf?

whenever I look at any standard press for this game, they are trying to make the nords as dwarf-like as possible, for the standard elfdwarfhuman trifecta


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on January 30, 2013, 02:06:07 PM
Have a couple of interviews from the Grauniad's games section:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2013/jan/28/elder-scrolls-online-interview-matt-firor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2013/jan/29/elder-scrolls-online-characters


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sheepherder on January 31, 2013, 05:35:25 AM
Quote
A larger concern is how the melee combat of Skyrim and Oblivion, which is functional but somewhat unrefined, can be re-engineered for competitive play.

"It does work the same way mechanically in PVP as it does in PVE," says Firor. "So you swing with the left mouse and block with the right mouse, but there are a couple of new moves, like a really fast left click then right click will stun someone, plus things like doubletapping a key to roll away.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 31, 2013, 08:23:31 AM
These guys....I think they mean well, but I just wanna pat them on the head and say "you are just so CUTE!"


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2013, 08:48:41 AM
By the time it launches I can't tell what will happen. Will the hype become so large that people just take a chance on it? Or will it be one of those things where people that are Skryim fans say DO NOT WANT.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on January 31, 2013, 09:00:01 AM
Let's agree on something:

- Chances it will be acceptable as an Elder Scrolls game? Less than zero.
- Chances it will be acceptable as a MMORPG, and maybe even good? Some. Why not? We don't even know enough to say "zero" about this (while we know enough to say "zero" about the previous point).


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on January 31, 2013, 09:01:06 AM
Yeah it could be a decent MMO. I signed up for the beta as a lark. Who knows?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on January 31, 2013, 10:04:09 AM
Could be a decent mmo but man they are gonna make mistakes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on January 31, 2013, 10:24:00 AM
I can't be bothered to delve through the material.  Is the game class-based or skill/perk based like the previous games?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on January 31, 2013, 12:08:31 PM
Yes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on January 31, 2013, 08:57:12 PM
Class based.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on January 31, 2013, 09:20:06 PM
And skill based.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on February 01, 2013, 07:05:30 AM
So it's DAoC?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on February 01, 2013, 09:59:03 AM
So it's DAoC?  :awesome_for_real:

With an Elder Scrolls skin and more PVE.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on February 01, 2013, 10:03:20 AM
Here's their chance to learn from WAR, then.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Simond on February 01, 2013, 12:22:57 PM
You're a funny guy, you know that?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Sir T on February 02, 2013, 02:26:40 PM
Tell me more about this "learn" concept.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on February 03, 2013, 07:09:06 AM
It's where you ignore your textbooks and drink yourself silly at parties every night of the week.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on February 03, 2013, 07:21:41 AM
Tell me more about this "learn" concept.

Three star talent, four star drive, with a star saved for post-launch content. .


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: calapine on February 14, 2013, 11:36:12 AM
The entire excellent thing is silly. Who wouldn't keep punching buttons until they got it to excellent.

Well, I am average. Now even games think I suck.   :sad_panda: :sad_panda:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on February 23, 2013, 09:07:43 AM
If any of you haven't really felt inclined to hunt down the various details that have been released about this game, here's a guy who compiled all kinds of sourced info in one handy place.  Nothing new here, if you've been following every detail that's trickled out.

http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1443440-the-comprehensive-eso-mechanics-thread-100-sourced-information/



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: amiable on March 13, 2013, 07:44:46 AM
The last games I was this excited for were Warhammer online and Diablo 3.  Reviewing my history I can now make the following prediction:

The game will look visually stunning but be plagued with a series of game-breaking balance issues/exploits and half developed features that will prove more frustrating than fun.  Most hardcore guilds RvR will leave after 3 months to return to rift/GW2/WoT.  Zenimax media owns them both. Betheda will milk a few more dollars out of Skyrim via dlc’s then be folded into Zenimax Online to create the new dlc areas. The game will eventually fold or move to f2p after months of being unable to address core gameplay issues and a string of broken promises that craters Bethesda's brand.  Zenimax online will be cut loose, Bethesda will be gone and the francise will be left a smoking ruin.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 13, 2013, 11:16:33 AM
I think it will succeed if their plan is to hold 250k subs continually, and make a profit that way.

If their plan is to hold a million subs? It's an expectations gap you can't win.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 13, 2013, 11:22:41 AM
At this point anyone making a subscription MMO is a fool.  They all overplan their sub base and are devastated afterwards.  Expecting this to be any different is putting too much faith in humanity and the 'business sense' of the games industry.

I'd be shocked if they were planning for LESS than 1 mil continual subs.  Much like new housing there's too many features demanded by the market for the lower revenue ranges.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: murdoc on March 19, 2013, 12:23:10 PM
PAReport with a hands-on

http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/elder-scrolls-online-nails-the-online-stumbles-on-the-elder-scrolls-during-



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 19, 2013, 02:30:22 PM
I forgot to mention this two weeks ago.  There was a huge troll/ argument around TES:O going on in the Neverwinter beta chat during the public week.  So many  - SO MANY - people were damn certain it was going to be free-form "just like Elder Scrolls, otherwise you wouldn't call it that!"

Not even through the first subheading and I've read 4 things that will make these people rage so hard I think my Schadenfreude just had an embolism. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on March 19, 2013, 09:15:50 PM
PAReport with a hands-on

http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/elder-scrolls-online-nails-the-online-stumbles-on-the-elder-scrolls-during-
The contents of the article aside; is it just my eyesight/monitor getting worse, or is the font that PAReport use in their articles hard to read? I've seen the same font in a couple of other places and it's starting to bug me. Seems like parts of some letters are in bold (like the first line in each 'h'). I get the same feeling from reading it as I do when I Read Text Where Every Letter Starts With A Capital Letter. -_-



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on March 19, 2013, 10:24:02 PM
The font is Arial. Something on your end is broken.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 19, 2013, 11:12:32 PM
It's Helvetica, which is much better for signs and banners than it is text. 

Calibri is the most used 'business type' font right now - reads like butter, but is fairly dry looking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on March 20, 2013, 12:00:04 AM
Interesting. Looks fine in IE 9, but both Opera and Chrome have the same issue with the font. Curiouser and curiouser.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 20, 2013, 03:38:21 AM
I think I see what Xuri sees. It's just come caps letter on my end have a "bold" upper side.

This:

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3584773/Fonts.png)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bzalthek on March 20, 2013, 04:46:00 AM
I catch Destructoid on my Roku frequently (see Rev3 games on youtube), and Max Scoville (sp?) mentioned in the last episode that he had some hands on playtime.  Not much of substance was discussed but from what he could tell it seemed that they are very much trying to cater to the single player "Hero" storyline with the option of grouping with other "heroes" if you want.   And apparently while there are classes, they're just templates as per previous iterations of Elder Scrolls games, and customization is completely free beyond that point.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 20, 2013, 04:58:59 AM
PAReport with a hands-on

http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/elder-scrolls-online-nails-the-online-stumbles-on-the-elder-scrolls-during-
The contents of the article aside; is it just my eyesight/monitor getting worse, or is the font that PAReport use in their articles hard to read? I've seen the same font in a couple of other places and it's starting to bug me. Seems like parts of some letters are in bold (like the first line in each 'h'). I get the same feeling from reading it as I do when I Read Text Where Every Letter Starts With A Capital Letter. -_-
They are trying to use one of those shitty webfonts because standard fonts that actually work are just too functional for some people.  As with most webfonts it looks like garbage on every browser except the guy's who came up with the idea to use it.  Other people think it's arial or helvetica because those are the options it falls back on if your system can't display it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Rendakor on March 20, 2013, 11:10:28 AM
I think I see what Xuri sees. It's just come caps letter on my end have a "bold" upper side.

This:

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3584773/Fonts.png)
Must be a browser issue of some kind, because it doesn't look your screenshot on my browser.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Xuri on March 20, 2013, 11:37:52 AM
Don't want to drag this off topic too much, but enabling the ClearType feature in Windows 7 cleared out this problem for me in Opera (strangely, it had no effect in Chrome). Of course, it also changed the font and made it look different in other programs all over the place, but...meh ;P


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 20, 2013, 11:44:04 AM
A page of font discussion over a preview article.

This game has legs, I tell you!


Another laughable moment from the article.  The writer's, "I was playing the way *I* wanted to play. Nobody told me I had to do xyz." section.  It was so naive.  You're right nobody's said, "you must use this skill or you suck." or "Why the hell did you pick that, use this instead."  It's a preview of an unfinished game and you're solo.

Nobody forces you to pick certain talents or pieces of equipment in MMOs, either. It's just understood that you're terribad if you don't.  It's as if the writer's never played an MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: HaemishM on March 20, 2013, 01:29:23 PM
Interesting. Looks fine in IE 9, but both Opera and Chrome have the same issue with the font. Curiouser and curiouser.

IE's font renderer is shit. Chrome should usually have better looking fonts unless they are trying to use some weird webfont. Also, Helvetica for body copy makes Baby Jesus stabby.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 20, 2013, 03:41:44 PM


Nobody forces you to pick certain talents or pieces of equipment in MMOs, either. It's just understood that you're terribad if you don't.  It's as if the writer's never played an MMO.

But.. but.. but this one will be balanced, we swear!


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nonentity on March 20, 2013, 07:06:38 PM
Yeah, that font thing is really weird.

IE10 on top, Chrome on bottom


Just checked and ClearType is set to on already in Win7.

As far as the game is concerned, I really could care two shits about Elder Scrolls as a franchise, I just want them to make their single-player games playable in a small-scale co-op fashion (2-4 people). I don't need an MMO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: UnSub on March 20, 2013, 09:14:07 PM
Nobody forces you to pick certain talents or pieces of equipment in MMOs, either.

Especially not during a press demonstration of an alpha build area.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on March 20, 2013, 09:24:43 PM


Another laughable moment from the article.  The writer's, "I was playing the way *I* wanted to play. Nobody told me I had to do xyz." section.  It was so naive.  You're right nobody's said, "you must use this skill or you suck." or "Why the hell did you pick that, use this instead."  It's a preview of an unfinished game and you're solo.


I talked to someone who got to play at a press event and they said the same thing.  I said, well, if that is the case, then great, but I've heard that literally more times than I can remember at this point, and it never really pans out that way in reality.

Bottom line is, at this point my default opinion about any MMORPG is that it will suck.  If the game comes out and people like it for more than 2-3 months on a large scale, maybe I'll try though.   


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 21, 2013, 08:49:02 AM

Another laughable moment from the article.  The writer's, "I was playing the way *I* wanted to play. Nobody told me I had to do xyz." section.  It was so naive.  You're right nobody's said, "you must use this skill or you suck." or "Why the hell did you pick that, use this instead."  It's a preview of an unfinished game and you're solo.

Nobody forces you to pick certain talents or pieces of equipment in MMOs, either. It's just understood that you're terribad if you don't.  It's as if the writer's never played an MMO.

Heh I was saying the same thing.  "orly? You picked a melee defensive ability because you are melee? Good for you.  What? That will be a shit build once you group with people? Of Course! That's how MMOs work."


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Stokowski on March 21, 2013, 09:54:45 AM
"... Stros M'kai, a small island not far from the city of Daggerfall"

 :ye_gods:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on March 21, 2013, 12:16:06 PM
Yeah, that kind of confused me a bit. You know, since it's not anywhere near (http://images.uesp.net/c/c3/TamrielMap.jpg) Daggerfall (or even High Rock in general) at all.

Surely they haven't moved the thing.

... right?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on March 21, 2013, 01:16:17 PM
What's a map of the Elder Scrolls' world have to do with this game?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 21, 2013, 01:51:45 PM
It's an island so it just floated away as the centuries passed.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 21, 2013, 02:16:40 PM
It's in the province adjacent to High Rock. I understand the desire to find things wrong with this game, but that's getting awfully nitpicky.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: koro on March 21, 2013, 05:09:01 PM
I'm not even complaining about the game, I'm just slightly baffled at the previewer.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on March 22, 2013, 02:41:46 AM
It's Helvetica, which is much better for signs and banners than it is text. 

Calibri is the most used 'business type' font right now - reads like butter, but is fairly dry looking.

Could be either actually. From the page's style sheet.

body {
    font-family: "PAR",Helvetica,Arial,Verdana,sans-serif;
    font-size: 14px;
    color: rgb(44, 44, 44);
}


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 22, 2013, 10:04:15 AM
I realized that about 1 second after I posted but never corrected myself.

Odd question though:  What's "PAR"?  I've never run across that yet.  I tried to match it up in the source but couldn't find it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on March 22, 2013, 10:23:59 AM
Guys, guys. You can force fonts and smoothing inside of Chrome.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on March 22, 2013, 10:44:15 AM
I realized that about 1 second after I posted but never corrected myself.

Odd question though:  What's "PAR"?  I've never run across that yet.  I tried to match it up in the source but couldn't find it.
As I said earlier it is a shitty webfont, probably custom made, I assume it is an acronym with the first two letters standing for penny arcade.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 22, 2013, 01:47:30 PM
Penny Arcade Report, it's a sister site to the web comic in an attempt to be gaming journalists.  I do not believe Gabe or Tycho actually have much to do with PAR at all but the news is semi-decent.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 22, 2013, 08:44:16 PM
Yea I kinda like their style.

Waited on line for an hour to play 20 minutes of ESO at PAX East. It wasn't terrible, for the obviously-early playable demo that it was. But neither was it Skyrim. Kind of a blend of DDO and GW2 for me. There's an action-y element to it, even with the limited abilities they granted ya (they offered pre-rolled level 6 characters but you got to choose your skills, which were most, but not all, of those available). The characters were bigger on screen than in GW2. I didn't see the first person mode the earlier PAR reviewer saw. That alone would change the feel (duh).

Kinda looking sorta-maybe similar to Skyrim in models, but it didn't have that polish. Which I can forgive given how early it is. I can see where they're headed graphically. While I don't expect super-modded-out Skyrim nor even Tomb Raider, it's not going to be ugly. And in fact, it'll be a lot less brown than stock Skyrim.

The demo reels on the TVs were all about the demo. They spent a good amount of time tutoring you while you stood on line. We all got a nice group chuckle out of "WASD is for movement, left click is for soft attack". Marvel Universe Online at least changes that. But then, it only changes it to make it like Diablo 3  :awesome_for_real:

ESO pre-pre-Alpha didn't suck. But it wasn't anything new either.

I will say though, the cinematic is pretty cool (old video from January (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0jNT5cMwxw0#!)). That was the first time I was arsed to watch it all the way through. Some day month year we'll play games at that resolution.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 22, 2013, 09:26:51 PM
What was the actiony element? Can you elaborate?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 23, 2013, 10:34:15 AM
Positioning didn't seem to matter, but there was a lot of movement to move in or out of range. I was playing Sorcerer, and while it did have the ES-like "block", I still didn't want to get hit. Move in, move out, roll to dodge, very responsive keys. Wasn't as frenetic as GW2, but then my character was only level 6, and I spent the whole session on an investigation mission in Daggerfall.

It all works well in the third person as you'd expect. Which makes me wonder how well first person will work.

One nice thing I just remembered: very clean UI. You didn't see anything you didn't need to see in that context. Only see the HP bar when getting it, only see the mana bar when using magic, etc. Like Skyrim. Maybe a little thing, but it was nice to not have the casino-level-of-noisy UI that is WoW, or the distractingly-colorful UI of GW2. If you came straight from Skyrim, you'll feel at home. Except for the chat box, which was populated the entire time by NPC chatter. If I pick this up at launch, I'll be turning off the chat altogether. Map was also useful, definitely inspired much by "go to dot/highlighted area" of WoW/Aion/etc.

One annoying that I just remembered: the pitch. Jeezus people, how long has it been since we literally did stand in one spot and hit the auto attack key? That hasn't been a point of differentiation for a new MMO for 10 years.

One thing I laughed out loud at: someone asked about crafting. With great effusiveness they described how awesome it would be, without saying how it would work. I also overheard a "not for launch we wanted to focus on polish" answer to a question I assumed was about housing.

Overall there's definitely an ES feel here. As much as I too would just like small co-op Skyrim, I don't think they're shitting on the memory of Skyrim with this game. It won't be for the hardcore Skyrim modder getting into wiki arguments on story points. But then, MMOs haven't been for that group since ever, delusion marketing notwithstanding.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: blackwulf on March 23, 2013, 12:37:59 PM
Darniaq, thanks for the unbiased review.  I know you only had a few minutes with the game, but it sounds like there's at least as much good as bad in your first impression.  I hope 6 more months or so will provide enough time for them to polish it into something that will impress.  I'm excited for the game mainly because of what I've heard in the last week about character progression.  Seems we'll get to pick our build from hundreds of skills, and some of those skills are from trees where you choose a branch, and you even get a skill tree based on your starting race.  In other words, it's unlikely you'll ever have a character just like the person you are grouped with or fighting.  This is important to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hawkbit on March 23, 2013, 01:31:37 PM
Consider that housing is one of the more engaging parts of Skyrim, and I think launching without is a mistake.  It doesn't need to be as verbose as Hearthfire, but the player should be able to purchase a house in the major cities at least. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 23, 2013, 03:51:03 PM
To reiterate, I only assume the discussion was about housing. And that assumption was based on a Game Informer article confirming the same. But I could be wrong about what I heard. He coulda been asking about music :-)

I don't know that lack of housing is to ESO that space combat was to SWG per se. But it does seem an example of deprioritizing a core element of the IP in favor of the medium shift. No MMO since UO has lived or died by its housing. Even Blizzard only gave it the occasional passing mention. Housing is not synonymous with success.

But it's a shame anyway.

blackwulf: as to branching skills, I hope so. It didn't come out in the demo but I was a young character and the system didn't seem complete.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 23, 2013, 04:07:08 PM
One annoying that I just remembered: the pitch. Jeezus people, how long has it been since we literally did stand in one spot and hit the auto attack key? That hasn't been a point of differentiation for a new MMO for 10 years.

Would you care to elaborate a bit more on this? I am not sure I understand what you mean, and this seems to be about an aspect that matters a lot to me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 23, 2013, 05:57:59 PM
I think he's saying they used, "No standing there just auto-attacking!" in the 'pitch' (market hype) speech prior to the demo.

Which if true is just sad, for at least the reason he points out.  That model hasn't been standard since 2002.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 23, 2013, 08:10:26 PM
That's it exactly. There were a litany of lte 2000s-era pitches they'd use over and over. All variations of "Never fight for loot", "never fight for your chance at a boss", "no more trains to zone", and "don't just hit autoattack and watch".

Eventually they all fell out of use when even the most vacuous hired PR temp realized the audience was passively mocking their assertion that those things were still selling points.

But somehow "don't just hit autoattack and watch" is still being used. Like we're all skill-uping our 7xGM in the Yew graveyard or our 1H in HHP or something else we haven't done in a decade.

tl;dr: nobody is just hitting autoattack and watching anymore. ESO doesn't have it. But that's just being something built after 2003. They're out of date for pitching that as an improvement.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 23, 2013, 09:28:06 PM
Just saw this article (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-23-elder-scrolls-ip-first-step-in-online-reaching-consumers) at gameindustry.biz. Key:

Quote
"We're in beta right now, we're almost feature complete...

I'll just say I hope what they had at PAX was nothing more than a scripted slice, because near feature-complete Beta it most certainly was not.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 23, 2013, 09:44:50 PM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Phred on March 23, 2013, 11:20:00 PM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?

Is anyone else getting a little tired of having to spam mouse clicks being a feature?



Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on March 23, 2013, 11:22:06 PM
Is the alternative tab target auto attack? Then no.

If it's something else, sure we can try that. I just don't want to keep doing tab targetting and auto swing.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nebu on March 24, 2013, 01:08:57 AM
Is anyone else getting a little tired of having to spam mouse clicks being a feature?

I hate it, but the Diablo crowd seems to love it.  I'd much rather mouse move and spam abilities on my keyboard. 


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: schild on March 24, 2013, 01:14:35 AM
Is anyone else getting a little tired of having to spam mouse clicks being a feature?
I hate it, but the Diablo crowd seems to love it.  I'd much rather mouse move and spam abilities on my keyboard. 
Neither here nor there, but we don't want it in things that aren't Diablo or a game seated firmly in the niche genre of isometric loot-driven action RPGs.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 24, 2013, 10:10:42 AM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?
Not that I could see. Left click to use your soft attack, right click for block, Q and R for quickslot items (health in Q, my R was empty but presumably that's for a stamina or mana potion), number keys for abilities.

It wasn't as spammy as MUO (or D3). I'm fine with it though because the only time spammy-clicking annoys me is when the game also uses ground targeting for movement (ie, all isometric loot games). But that's just a minor annoyance quickly overcome when the loots dropping in those appropriate experiences.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: palmer_eldritch on March 24, 2013, 12:06:45 PM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?
Not that I could see. Left click to use your soft attack, right click for block, Q and R for quickslot items (health in Q, my R was empty but presumably that's for a stamina or mana potion), number keys for abilities.

It wasn't as spammy as MUO (or D3). I'm fine with it though because the only time spammy-clicking annoys me is when the game also uses ground targeting for movement (ie, all isometric loot games). But that's just a minor annoyance quickly overcome when the loots dropping in those appropriate experiences.

If your soft attack is really just something to do while you wait for your special abilities to recharge then I don't see what's so wrong with having it work automatically instead of making the player left-click repeatedly?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 24, 2013, 12:48:05 PM
Does it HAVE autoattack though? Or are you actively swinging and shit?
Not that I could see. Left click to use your soft attack, right click for block, Q and R for quickslot items (health in Q, my R was empty but presumably that's for a stamina or mana potion), number keys for abilities.

It wasn't as spammy as MUO (or D3). I'm fine with it though because the only time spammy-clicking annoys me is when the game also uses ground targeting for movement (ie, all isometric loot games). But that's just a minor annoyance quickly overcome when the loots dropping in those appropriate experiences.

If your soft attack is really just something to do while you wait for your special abilities to recharge then I don't see what's so wrong with having it work automatically instead of making the player left-click repeatedly?


Tera uses (manual) "white attacks" as a way to manage your mana/power used for magics and powers. I am not expecting TESO combat to be half as good as Tera's, but removing auto-attack is the first step towards a less repetitive and more user-dependent (as opposed to gear-and-spreadsheet dependent) combat experience.

EDIT: For the record, Tera is the perfect example of a combat where your soft/white attack is used a lot for tactical reasons but it cannot be spammed, mostly due the importance of positioning. So no crazy clicking.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 24, 2013, 01:37:35 PM
If your soft attack is really just something to do while you wait for your special abilities to recharge then I don't see what's so wrong with having it work automatically instead of making the player left-click repeatedly?

I never played TERA (or if I did, quickly forgot it), but ESO felt more like what Falconeer described. It was not spammy in the way that makes you wonder why they didn't just make it an auto attack.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on March 24, 2013, 11:18:40 PM
Darniaq, did you get a chance to play Neverwinter at PAXeast? If so, how would you compare the way the two games feel with regards to combat?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Shannow on March 25, 2013, 10:19:20 AM
Darniaq, did you get a chance to play Neverwinter at PAXeast? If so, how would you compare the way the two games feel with regards to combat?

God bless him if he had the patience to stand in that line.  That was stupid long.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: ashrik on March 25, 2013, 12:33:00 PM
I played it on Saturday, but I didn't wait in a line. Not sure what the circumstances were, actually, i just walked up to an open computer and started backstabbing people.
Whoops, thought this was the Neverwinter thread


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 25, 2013, 12:58:13 PM
Left click to attack is fine and all until you get to long ass boss fights with repeated wipes and attempts. Just the thought of playing my wow rogue where I would have to click my auto attacks makes my hand cramp up.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 25, 2013, 02:15:43 PM
Stopping to think in WoW terms improves your gamer's life.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ingmar on March 25, 2013, 02:26:43 PM
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 25, 2013, 02:31:02 PM
You are right, in that case it makes perfect sense that you comment on the thread about a game that is not WoW to say how bad it would be if that game actually tried to be WoW without doing things the way WoW do.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Zetor on March 25, 2013, 03:03:55 PM
Left click to attack is fine and all until you get to long ass boss fights with repeated wipes and attempts. Just the thought of playing my wow rogue where I would have to click my auto attacks makes my hand cramp up.
In Neverwinter you just have to hold down the LMB. Kind of like playing a tf2 pyro  :awesome_for_real:

(obviously if you hold down the button like that, you'll be SOL if you need to dodge something. But hey, at least it's an option!)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 25, 2013, 05:51:16 PM
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.
Or in the business of delivering an MMO to a genre where about 95% of the players have played WoW and probably half of them didn't play any MMOs before it and a good percentage of them probably haven't played another one for nearly as long.

In other words: nothing wrong with comparing an MMO to WoW. We were all comparing them to EQ1 originally once like-UO fell out of favor :awesome_for_real:

Darniaq, did you get a chance to play Neverwinter at PAXeast? If so, how would you compare the way the two games feel with regards to combat?
Wish I did but got burned out on line-standing after ESO :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 25, 2013, 07:21:41 PM
Left click to attack is fine and all until you get to long ass boss fights with repeated wipes and attempts. Just the thought of playing my wow rogue where I would have to click my auto attacks makes my hand cramp up.
Stopping to think in WoW terms improves your gamer's life.
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.
Or in the business of delivering an MMO to a genre where about 95% of the players have played WoW and probably half of them didn't play any MMOs before it and a good percentage of them probably haven't played another one for nearly as long.

In other words: nothing wrong with comparing an MMO to WoW. We were all comparing them to EQ1 originally once like-UO fell out of favor :awesome_for_real:

Nothing wrong comparing but there's not a real comparison up there. What's the point of thinking of WoW without auto-attack?
Are they gonna remove auto-attack from WoW? Or do we know if TESO boss fights are going to be built as WoW's? There are already thousands of games and MMOs where you have to click to attack (or keep a key pressed to attack repeatedly), and no one gets hand cramps. Because they are not-WoW and they are not built around the auto-attack mechanic which allows for and make bearable hours long fights.
This is not about what way is better, not in the slightest and not what I meant. To each his/her/their own. I only meant to point out that if you always comment on things based on how they work or would work in WoW, even when the topic is Absolutely-Not-WoW, hard not to note that your perspective is very narrow.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Margalis on March 25, 2013, 07:24:55 PM
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.

In which case you'd just play WoW - as a dozen companies have discovered.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on March 25, 2013, 10:05:31 PM
Are they gonna remove auto-attack from WoW? Or do we know if TESO boss fights are going to be built as WoW's? There are already thousands of games and MMOs where you have to click to attack (or keep a key pressed to attack repeatedly), and no one gets hand cramps. Because they are not-WoW and they are not built around the auto-attack mechanic which allows for and make bearable hours long fights.
This is not about what way is better, not in the slightest and not what I meant. To each his/her/their own. I only meant to point out that if you always comment on things based on how they work or would work in WoW, even when the topic is Absolutely-Not-WoW, hard not to note that your perspective is very narrow.
I agree with you on the second point. The universe isn't measured on a scale of +/- WoW :-) I just think it's so inevitable to compare <New Thing> with <Most Popular Thing> that it's silly to critique that comparison. Everything derives from something else, which is the glass-half-full version of everything stands on the shoulder of giants.

On the first point though: I actually find "WoW autoattack" interesting. I don't recall it ever being autoattack for me. Everything I did was a keystroke. But then, I only played caster-like classes and could never understand the allure of wands. It was still spammy, especially in the old school Fire/Arc template (scortch scortch scortch scorth, oh wait for it... scrortch!). I didn't have access to nearly enough abilities in the ESO demo to see if it'd be the same.

I also didn't see anything in the way of group combos or skills building into other skills. But my first real blush with ESO was actually this demo, so I don't know nearly as much as everyone else here about how the whole thing plays, or what's accessible in beta, etc.

I'm hoping for some element of dynamic world events (even if they're predictable like Rift or GW2) and some amount of action-y combat. Based on what you said about, sounds like TERA has that. Once i get through Bioshock, I may hafta give that a whirl just to see.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Merusk on March 26, 2013, 05:59:24 AM
Unless of course you're one of the millions upon millions of people who like WoW-style gameplay.

In which case you'd just play WoW - as a dozen companies have discovered.

Not anymore.  With blizzard screwing the pooch on the last expansion and now fucking the same player base again By forcing progression and wanting raids to "matter" WoW is weaker than ever.   Only Pokemon and habit seem to be keeping people in it now.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 27, 2013, 06:51:34 PM
Stopping to think in WoW terms improves your gamer's life.

Don't delude yourself into thinking they won't steal from the modern MMO genre in huge swaths, forget wow.

You have either two options when it comes to twitch attacks.

1. Make each attack meaningful IE:Skyrim, putting a lot of power in the swing and not in special abilities except now many will feel like your game doesn't have enough depth cause they don't have rows of shiny buttons.
2. You have a hotbar filled with abilities much more important that your constant button mashing which becomes tedious.

I would love to play a rogue that wields weapons and doesn't have a million different "tricks" with 6 hotbars like SWTOR but do you really think that's gonna happen?  Face facts, TESO is not going to break much tradition and that means you are gonna be mashing the mouse like an idiot.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 27, 2013, 07:39:12 PM
2. You have a hotbar filled with abilities much more important that your constant button mashing which becomes tedious.

TERA says combat can have a hotbar filled with abilities alongside twitchy soft attacks that are important without a need to spam them. I am not even remotely thinking (hoping) TESO will have a combat like that, or a combat I will enjoy. All I am saying is that MMORPG combat has evolved, and it might not be obvious if we only pay attention to million-subscribers games, but there's some pretty cool and smart stuff out there already.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 27, 2013, 08:37:34 PM
If you have an attack that can be spammed then you either spam it or you don't do as well as the person that does.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on March 27, 2013, 10:03:20 PM
If you have an attack that can be spammed then you either spam it or you don't do as well as the person that does.

Which doesn't really matter much outside PvE raiding damage parsing poopsockers.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 28, 2013, 02:32:50 AM
If you have an attack that can be spammed then you either spam it or you don't do as well as the person that does.

You really don't know what you are talking about. Seriously, you should play more than one game.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lakov_Sanite on March 28, 2013, 04:34:46 AM
If you have an attack that can be spammed then you either spam it or you don't do as well as the person that does.

Which doesn't really matter much outside PvE raiding damage parsing poopsockers.

PVP

And falconeer, I've played over a dozen different MMO's in the past decade not just wow. TESO is not some bizarre indy title either, if you think they're going to rock the boat with innovation I think you're being naive.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on March 28, 2013, 05:37:11 AM
No Lakov, all I am saying is that I don't understand why you fail to acknowledge that there are combat systems now in MMOs that work perfectly well without auto-attack. I never meant to say (well, not in this thread) that they are better. Just that they exist and work very well, while you seemed to imply with the comment that started this that they would just be hand-cramps material (since they would in WoW).

No idea what TESO will be like. I have zero investment in this game, not even trying to like it. Just saying that having a soft attack on your left click and a defensive skill on your right click on top of a hotbar filled with powers and abilities is far from being a bad thing, as demonstrated by a few recent products out there. Regardless of personal preference, implementation and execution are what will make it awesome or shitty. Not the concept.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on March 28, 2013, 10:51:16 AM
Lakov, you're pretty much wrong though. If you're spamming attacks in TERA you're doing it wrong. How wrong will vary on class. Timing is more important than anything else.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 14, 2013, 04:02:37 PM
So there is a 20 minutes leaked gameplay video bouncing around the 'tubes... the game looks pretty damn generic...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 14, 2013, 04:18:51 PM
PC Gamer (http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/14/here-are-20-leaky-minutes-of-elder-scrolls-online-footage/) has it.

It's... not exactly bad. It's just so utterly devoid of personality or charm and looks exactly like a game that hasn't had any graphical improvement since development started. The UI is austere and I suppose vaguely reminiscent of Skyrim's UI (though probably not as fuckawful to use) and the animations are pretty cheap and lifeless. The game seems to be fully voice-overed but we're not talking Bioware stuff by a long shot.
It reminds me most of a slightly updated DAoC. I don't say that in a nostalgic fashion, either. Because what it reminds me of is all the mistakes and terrible old systems that game had over a decade ago - XP debt, anyone? Yeah, I thought not.

About the biggest difference to most fantasy MMO gameplay TESO has is the reticule - magic is cast in the same manner as the singleplayer games and I'd assume Archery follows the same rules.

It just seems crazy Zenimax think this is going to cut the mustard in a post SWtOR/GW2 market or remotely compete with any of the old guard games. This feels like a massive misstep in the end. It'll probably do alright at launch if they can clean it up between now and then but I reckon it might have the fastest player exodus in MMO history.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 14, 2013, 04:38:30 PM
You can feel the 2007 development start-date leaking through the screen


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2013, 05:20:43 PM
Two things bother me about that video. One thing was whoever was "playing" the game was so horrible at it, they managed not only to die twice within starting, but they also refused to stop clicking through the quests. If you're showing gameplay, show at least one full voiced character without cutting them off. Total dumbass.

The second thing was the casting. It seemed like there was no targeting in the traditional tab sense, however there we a couple of times where missiles found targets when the camera was facing another direction. If there are lock-on targets, that's a no-go for me. That's just fancy tab-target.

The UI/graphics are going to be a complaint for some, which I guess I can understand on the graphics front. Skyrim sort of set the bar there, and anything that steps backwards and releases later will be looked upon with contempt. However, we all KNEW the UI would be a disaster. They've never done that right. Ever, ever, ever.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Threash on April 14, 2013, 05:56:39 PM
Looks like it's gone now, any other place to see it?


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2013, 06:09:38 PM
Looks like it's gone now, any other place to see it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lddqEwKVgyA


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Falconeer on April 14, 2013, 06:37:47 PM
You can feel the 2007 development start-date leaking through the screen

This. Well said.

Looks something between Vanguard and Age of Conan. Quality is of course better than those but not nearly enough as one would expect both by an Elder Scrolls and a 2013 game. Very, very underwhelming. I must say, as much as I wasn't believing in this game, this is much less than the "very little" I was already expecting.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fordel on April 14, 2013, 06:50:51 PM
Two things bother me about that video. One thing was whoever was "playing" the game was so horrible at it, they managed not only to die twice within starting, but they also refused to stop clicking through the quests. If you're showing gameplay, show at least one full voiced character without cutting them off. Total dumbass.



I've never seen any MMO preview/leak video with the player being actually good at the game. Like ever. I really don't understand it either.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 14, 2013, 06:56:32 PM
i don't think they're trying to be good at the game, I thnk they're attempting to show as much in a small timeframe as possible. So stuff like initiating combat, random aggro, death etc is really just demonstrating what the system has in place for these inevitablities. Nobody actually plays MMOs like the guy in the video.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on April 14, 2013, 07:07:06 PM
All links dead. From the screencaps of it though, that looks exactly like the demo from PAX East. Not surprising little in the way of style and UI has changed in the last few weeks :-)


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Malakili on April 14, 2013, 07:25:03 PM
All links dead. From the screencaps of it though, that looks exactly like the demo from PAX East. Not surprising little in the way of style and UI has changed in the last few weeks :-)

Just pick your fantasy MMO of choice, put its name into youtube, watch a video of someone playing it for a while and then you've basically seen it.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 14, 2013, 07:27:39 PM
I can pretty much promise anyone who wishes they'd caught the footage while it was up has only missed someone wandering boredly around the dullest acre of MMO real estate seen since 2002 and getting beaten up by wolves and mudcrabs. It's probably outrageously ungracious to dismiss the game from this leak alone but it really hasn't done Zenimax any favours; both that it's so utterly uninteresting and how desperate they've been to pull it speaks volumes.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Venkman on April 14, 2013, 07:35:10 PM
All links dead. From the screencaps of it though, that looks exactly like the demo from PAX East. Not surprising little in the way of style and UI has changed in the last few weeks :-)

Just pick your fantasy MMO of choice, put its name into youtube, watch a video of someone playing it for a while and then you've basically seen it.

Don't need to, I played it. Not to repeat a few pages back, but it had a Morrowind look with a kinda-Skyrim/DDO action feel. It was generic in a early LoTRO way without even any of the more recent features like dynamic or scaling events, which weren't really on the scene until near 2010 anyway.

Between WoW and GW2, there were various attempts to figure out what WoW didn't do well for a large enough number of people to justify a AAA without needing to fight Blizzard. It feels like these guys figured "but it's set in the beloved ES world!!" as their main point of difference, and enough people are using Skyrim's success to continue that kool aid drinking, ignoring that some of the very things that made Skyrim successful aren't on the short list of launch features for ESO.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 14, 2013, 09:13:40 PM
We all kind of suspected it was going to be shit, but I'll be fair and say this really wasn't going to do it any favors either way. The setting was never going to carry the game if the combat wasn't true to the other games. That was the problem. Blizzard wouldn't have been able to make a game like Skyrim, set in Azeroth, and then released WoW with tab-target combat after the fact to the same acclaim. Hell, I doubt Blizzard could release WoW NOW to the same acclaim. It's a fool's errand to even try.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Fabricated on April 14, 2013, 09:23:14 PM
To be fair it has pretty good character customization for an MMO anymore, on par with other TES games.

After that though...uhhh...


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 15, 2013, 06:58:53 AM
Video also located here:
http://vimeo.com/64004925


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Lantyssa on April 15, 2013, 11:21:23 AM
Looks something between Vanguard and Age of Conan. Quality is of course better than those but not nearly enough as one would expect both by an Elder Scrolls and a 2013 game. Very, very underwhelming. I must say, as much as I wasn't believing in this game, this is much less than the "very little" I was already expecting.
From the short bit I saw it looked like EQ with a few more polys.

Roommate: "Hey, come take a look at this."

Lantyssa: "That looks like EQ."

R: "EQ2?"

L: "No, EQ.  What is it?  Some indie project?"

R: "TESO."

Both: <nervous laughter>


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Hoax on April 15, 2013, 12:31:04 PM
This one's up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vcvo1peVCY

Its funny how bad this looks.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Draegan on April 15, 2013, 12:38:01 PM
The font and colors remind me of Vanguard.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Bunk on April 15, 2013, 12:38:19 PM
It looked to me that the targeting was reticule based in first person, but as soon as he switched to third person he was able to kite backwards with his spells hitting the target automatically.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Nija on April 15, 2013, 01:32:38 PM
1080p downloadable version here: https://mega.co.nz/#!xMECgZCa!UHHVEUYqaWiZZRo4ifD18zDVi9Q7YCUy3XS00t-_GtA


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2013, 01:40:54 PM
It looked to me that the targeting was reticule based in first person, but as soon as he switched to third person he was able to kite backwards with his spells hitting the target automatically.

That was exactly my thought as well. Which is true, is a terrifying departure from what they've promised, and what ES games were about.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Mattemeo on April 15, 2013, 01:53:19 PM
1080p downloadable version here: https://mega.co.nz/#!xMECgZCa!UHHVEUYqaWiZZRo4ifD18zDVi9Q7YCUy3XS00t-_GtA

Why anyone would want to download a 1080p video of a game that looks distinctly pre-HD is beyond me.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Miasma on April 15, 2013, 01:55:41 PM
The font and colors remind me of Vanguard.
I really hope those are placeholders while they work on the much better looking replacements.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: waffel on April 15, 2013, 01:57:06 PM
It's impressive how hard they are working to take down the leaks. The game looks great, I'd be proud of it if I were them.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Paelos on April 15, 2013, 02:06:33 PM
It's impressive how hard they are working to take down the leaks. The game looks great, I'd be proud of it if I were them.  :oh_i_see:

Case in point, Blizzard's lack of NDA in their beta process for WoW.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: shiznitz on April 15, 2013, 02:52:00 PM
I really hope those are placeholders while they work on the much better looking replacements.

How many times has that sentence or some variant been written about a soon-to-be-released MMOG? And every single time the answer is those are not placeholders.


Title: Re: The Elder Scrolls Online
Post by: Ginaz on April 15, 2013, 03:20:43 PM
This feed